Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill; Bill to be read the Third time.

PORT OF LONDON BILL

As amended, considered; Bill to be read the Third time.

ARGYLL COUNTY COUNCIL (ARINAGOUR AND CRAIGNURE PIERS, &C.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Consideration deferred till Wednesday, 28th June.

NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGOLA

Mr. Brockway: asked the Lord Privy Sea what action the delegation of the United Kingdom took in the Security Council on the recent request of forty member States for an urgent meeting of the Council to consider the serious situation prevailing in Angola.

Mr. Healey: asked the Lord Privy Seal how the British delegates voted in the Security Council discussions on Angola.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now assure the Secretary General of the United Nations that Her Majesty's Government will support the recent resolution of the Security Council on Angola, and the immediate implementation of the Council's mandate to the Sub-Committee of Inquiry; and if he will make appropriate representations to the Portuguese Government, in view of the unsettling effect in nearby British territories of recent disturbances in Angola.

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will take steps at the United Nations to expedite an early report by the United Nations Sub-Committee on Angola.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Lord Privy Seal why the British delegate abstained on the recent resolution on Angola in the Security Council.

Mr. Hale: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will take steps at the United Nations to expedite the report of the Sub-Committee on Angola.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) on 12th June.

Mr. Brockway: Is it not the case that when this matter was discussed by the Security Council this resolution was carried unanimously with only the United Kingdom and France abstaining? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of haw shocked moral opinion is that Britain should have abstained in this


way? Is he further aware that Britain's attitude means the loss of the confidence of a great part of Asia, of a great part of Africa, and of a great part of the liberal world?

Mr. Heath: I cannot accept the statement made in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The difference between our own colonial policy and that of Portugal has been explained on many occasions and is well recognised both in Africa and in Asia. The particular reasons why we abstained on this resolution have also been made plain before.

Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the difference between Her Majesty's Government in Africa and the Portuguese Government is bound to be obscure unless the British Government join such of her allies as the United States Government in condemning the policy of the Portuguese Government in Angola, which is already beginning to resemble that for which Eichmann is being tried in Jerusalem, namely, for the indiscriminate slaughter of tens of thousands of Africans? In view of this, will not Her Majesty's Government take every possible opportunity of expressing in public their repugnance at the present policy of the Salazar Government and the hope, as expressed in the Security Council resolution, that this policy of repression will be ceased forthwith?

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government deeply regret the loss of life in Angola, but it is no answer for the hon Gentleman to use such extravagant metaphors.

Mr. Iremonger: With regard to my Question, might I put this to my right hon. Friend, while dissociating myself from the most intemperate observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey): might it be not entirely necessary to await the report of this Sub-Committee of the United Nations? I suggest that we have evidence from men who are Englishmen and Christians who have been there recently and who, frankly, I believe, are telling the truth as to what is going on. Would it not be possible for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth to take the initiative in this matter? Might my right hon. Friend not make an approach to the Portuguese Government with, say,

the Foreign Minister of Nigeria and put it to them that if they behave like this they are making it impossible for the Western countries, who will be tarred with their brush?

Mr. Heath: Our representative at the United Nations expressed the hope that the Portuguese Government would cooperate with this Committee. It has been set up by the United Nations and we hope that the Portuguese Government will co-operate. Therefore, we hope to see a report as soon as possible. Of course, I recognise that many organisations and individuals have got information to give us about Angola and that they are making it fully public as well as sending it to us at the Foreign Office.

Mr. Prentice: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the act of abstention at the United Nations produced an impression in Africa and elsewhere that we are acquiescing in the policy of the Portuguese Government? The careful arguments that the right hon. Gentleman deploys at the Box do nothing to lessen that impression throughout the world. Is he aware that the report of the Baptist Misssionary Society confirms our worst fears about Angola, that what is happening there is nothing less than genocide?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman under-estimates the understanding of these matters which is shown by other delegations at the United Nations. This resolution contained a reference to the General Assembly resolution which called for immediate steps to make non-self-governing territories independent. That is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and it was not the policy of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends opposite when they were in power. Therefore, we did not vote for this resolution.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have never been in power but that I did put down Question No. 37, which asked him to say whether he would try to expedite the report of the Sub-Committee? Would the right hon. Gentleman also remember that in seeking to answer together several Questions of this diversity on an important moral issue which is affecting the minds of people throughout the world, which involves the lives of British subjects and


British missionaries, in respect of which the Observer reported yesterday that an additional 25,000 troops had been landed and that there may be a bloody holocaust in Angola if steps are not taken—is it not becoming a grave abuse of the process of this House for him to seek to answer Questions like this collectively, having disclaimed Ministerial responsibilty for many other questions which were sought to be put down? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the opinion the views and the rights of the House a little more on this extremely important and distressing question?

Mr. Heath: I am always endeavouring to meet the wishes of the House. Very often at Question Time the House is anxious that more Questions should be taken. It was therefore convenient to answer these together. I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question in saying that we hope that the Portuguese Government will cooperate with the Committee. We have expressed that hope publicly and we hope that the Committee will report as soon as possible, but it is for the Committee to decide how it will carry out its business and when it reports.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Would my right hon. Friend not say that the Portuguese delegate did outline the essential improvements which he and his Government propose to carry out in that territory?

Mr. Heath: Yes, that is so, and we hope that social and economic reforms will be valuable, but we also believe that political reforms should accompany them.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Her Majesty's Government's concurrence in the Portuguese policy of repression and extermination in Angola has been further emphasised by the sale of two frigates by Her Majesty's Government to the Portuguese authorities? Will he do something to see that even at this late hour the Government will prevent such a sale taking place?

Mr. Heath: I completely reject the right hon. Gentleman's accusation that British policy is in concurrence with that of Portugal in this matter.

Mr. Healey: Further to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the Baptist missionaries in Angola have reported that 34,000 men, women and children have already been killed by Portuguese troops in Angola, and that it is planned by the Portuguese Government to undertake operations which may lead to the deaths of another 50,000 men, women and children? In those circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that he is expressing the views of this country by selling two frigates to the Government responsible for these atrocities?

Mr. Heath: I have, of course, seen the figures put forward, and which the hon. Gentleman is putting forward, on which reliance can be put according to what one judges to be right. The question of the sale of frigates to Portugal as a N.A.T.O. ally is a different question from this.

Later—

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: On a point of order. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that either the Lord Privy Seal or the Joint Under-Secretary of State must have answered Question No. 23 with an earlier Question—

Mr. Speaker: That is so

Mr. Noel-Baker: This does raise a dilemma for hon. Members.

Hon. Members: No

Mr. Speaker: With respect, if hon. Members are not here then they have to bear the consequences. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is a difficulty we have had before.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of matters covered by Question No. 23 which are not referred to in earlier Questions which were answered, and we really are put into difficulty if Ministers are going to answer groups of Questions together, some of which cover different and wider grounds than others, without notifying hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: I recognise the difficulty. I cannot add to what I said before. It will increase our difficulties if we do not get on.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has about the safety of British missionaries in Angola; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): Although some British and Canadian missionaries and their wives and families have already left Angola, I have had no reports to indicate that those who remain are in danger.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the Baptist Missionary Society, those whom he suggests have left have been removed because they might possibly have been the eye-witnesses of an impending massacre which is being organised by the Portuguese Government and not because they are in any danger from the Africans? Would not the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend do something at this point to try to save these helpless people in Northern Angola?

Mr. Godber: I have no evidence in support of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. In regard to these missionaries, all the information we have is that they have, in fact, left for their own security, which would seem to be reasonable in view of some of the circumstances in the case.

Mr. Healey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several of these missionaries have been reported as saying that they left Angola against their will? Can he say whether he is in touch with the Portuguese Government on this situation? Is it not the case that these missionaries are at present the only British sources of information available even to the Government about what is happening in Northern Angola?

Mr. Godber: I have had evidence of only one case of a missionary who has been instructed to leave, and Her Majesty's Consul-General has taken up that case. I understand that the instruction has not yet been cancelled, but as far as I am aware he has not left Angola. I am not saying that there are not others, but this is the only one on which I have any information.

Mr. Hale: Does the hon. Gentleman's recently announced support of the principle of self-determination in West Berlin apply also to Angola?

Mr. Godber: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member is referring to in this case. Our own position in regard to Angola has been consistently stated time and again. Our policy in regard to colonial matters has been put forward again and again at the United Nations, and there is no question about that. Our views in regard to Portuguese policy in this case have been very clearly stated, and I have nothing to add at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ISRAEL

Mr. W. Yates: asked the Lord Privy Seal what reports have been received by Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations concerning Israel's violation of the neutral zones under the control of the Mixed Armistice Commission of the United Nations, especially with regard to the Israeli Govvernment's tunnelling operations designed to abstract the waters of the Jordan River.

Mr. Godber: I am not aware of any major violation of a demilitarised zone such as that indicated in the Question.

Mr. Yates: That may be, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that any abstraction of the Jordan waters by either party which is not according to international law would be most undesirable and dangerous at this time?

Mr. Godber: Yes, I realise that there are dangers inherent in this question of abstraction. I hope that anything of that sort which could be done by mutual agreement will be done, and I hope the United Nations could be used for this purpose.

Sir B. Janner: Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State please tell his hon. Friend that the best way of dealing with these matters is by agreement between both parties to ensure that there is sufficient water for each, and that there is no violation whatsover in this matter by Israel?

Mr. Godber: I have already said that there is no violation in this matter. I do not think I can usefully add to that reply.

Mr. W. Yates: asked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the threat of a violation of the Armistice Agreement, whether


Her Majesty's Government will reaffirm their obligations under the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, concerning the Israel Armistice lines, in the same way as was done by the United States of America in 1960; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: I am not aware of a threatened violation of one of the Armistice Agreements.

Mr. Yates: The Minister has not really answered my Question. The question is, if there is a violation of the Armistice Agreement, what is our position under the Tripartite Declaration?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That makes the question hypothetical unless there is a violation.

Sir B. Janner: May I again ask the Minister to point out to his hon. Friend that the constant bellowing of Nasser and his friends in the matter of declaring war against a State which is part and parcel of the United Nations is something to which he should attend rather than raise questions of this nature in the House?

Mr. Godber: There are many difficulties in this area. This is a very difficult problem I do not think there is anything that I can usefully add beyond what my right hon. and learned Friend the then Foreign Secretary said on 7th March last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-WEST AFRICA

Mr. Brockway: asked the Lord Privy Seal what action the Security Council has taken on the refusal of the Government of the Union of South Africa to permit the United Nations Committee to visit South-West Africa.

Mr. Godber: I presume the hon. Gentleman is referring to the letter of 10th May from the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs to the United Nations Secretary General. This has, I understand, been referred to the United Nations Committee for South-West Africa, and not the Security Council, for consideration.

Mr. Brockway: Are not the Government of the Union of South Africa defying a request by the United Nations that this mission shall visit South-West Africa?

In those circumstances, will the United Kingdom support the strongest action possible to see that the United Nations' decision on this matter is carried out?

Mr. Godber: I observe that in his letter of 10th May the South African Foreign Minister said that his Government were prepared to accept an impartial inquiry by an independent person mutually agreed upon by the President of the General Assembly and the South African Government into the validity of the allegation that international peace and security were threatened in South, West Africa.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Frontiers

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Lord Privy Seal if his attention has been drawn to an article in the London Bulletin, published in the United Kingdom by the German Federal Government on 16th May, advocating the return of the former territories east of the Oder-Neisse frontier; and if, in view of the potential adverse effect of this upon the prospects of a peaceful settlement in Europe, he will make representations to the Ambassador.

Mr. Heath: No, Sir. The article does not advocate the return of the former Eastern territories.

Mr. Allaun: But it certainly encouraged that. Does not the Minister think that this kind of propaganda appearing in an official publication encourages those forces in Germany whose dreams of recapturing lost provinces may cause a third war? Is it not an added impertinence when published in Britain?

Mr. Heath: I think it must be some time since the hon. Gentleman read the article, because he has forgotten that it says plainly that the Germans are fully conscious today of the fact that the Polish people were second only to the Jews in bearing the brunt of Hitler's savagery, and repeats the Government's statement that it renounces force as a means of changing frontiers.

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals Her Majesty's Government have made or will make to their North Atlantic Treaty Organisation


allies to secure a just plan for the stablisation of the German-Polish frontier.

Mr. Heath: None, Sir. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government remains that, in accordance with the Potsdam Agreement, the final delimitation of the frontier between Germany and Poland cannot be formalised until there is a peace settlement.

Mr. Silverman: Does the Lord Privy Seal realise, first, that there are at present no negotiations for a final peace settlement and that the Government are resisting the suggestion that there should be; second, that the Potsdam Agreement was destroyed long ago; and third, apart from these legal doubts and hesitations, the fact that there is an undetermined frontier between Poland and Germany—any part of Germany—is the most potent cause of instability in Eastern Europe and the most likely cause now existing in the world of a breakdown of international peace? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, although it was always contemplated that there might be minor local rectifications, the principle of the frontier we were committed to at Potsdam and ought not now to resile from? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] If that is a speech, it is a very good one.

Mr. Heath: I recognise full well that there are no negotiations going on at the moment. The Western Powers stated after the failure of the last Summit that they were always prepared to discuss these matters, but what is at stake is not legal quibbles but the freedom of West Berlin and the right of the East Berliners to have their own self-determination.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The last answer of the right hon. Gentleman seems to have arisen from the misconception that we were still considering supplementary questions to Question No. 7. Will he now give an answer to Question No. 8, which is the one I asked?

Mr. Speaker: It is essential that we get on and do not ask those things.

Mr. Heath: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the answer tomorrow, he will see that it is absolutely on the point.

Berlin

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals Her Majesty's Government have recently made or will make to their North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies to secure a joint plan for the future status of Berlin.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will undertake that the degree to which United Kingdom rights in West Berlin will be maintained will be decided independently of the decisions taken by other interested Powers.

Mr. Heath: The North Atlantic Council discussed the question of Berlin as recently as last May, in Oslo. They were all agreed that a peaceful and just solution for the problem of Germany including Berlin is to be found only on the basis of self-determination. The Western peace plan, put forward in 1959, provides for such a solution. Her Majesty's Government share their rights and responsibilities in Berlin with other Powers, and any action to uphold their rights and fulfil their responsibilities will be taken in concert with those Powers, as hitherto.

Mr. Silverman: Is that the whole of the constructive contribution which Her Majesty's Government at this time have to make? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the present position of Berlin can remain until there is a reunification of Germany? Is that a realistic approach? Do the Government believe that the state of Berlin cannot remain indefinitely as it is now? If they are not satisfied with the Russian proposal, why do they not take the initiative themselves and make some constructive proposals of their own?

Mr. Heath: The great Powers have their rights in Berlin—

Mr. Silverman: I did not say that they have not.

Mr. Heath: They have their rights in Berlin and on them depend the freedom of the West Berliners. The West Berliners are satisfied with that.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his report after the Vienna meeting with Mr. Khrushchev President Kennedy stated that in order to defend those rights he was prepared to take any risk whatsoever? Does the


policy enshrined in that attitude represent the policy that we have in West Berlin, or can the right hon. Gentleman tell us that we are looking at the problem with a more constructive approach than that statement of President Kennedy indicates?

Mr. Heath: We are keeping in close touch with our allies on this point.

Mr. Healey: Will the Lord Privy Seal agree, first, that if there is to be a change in the status of West Berlin it must be by agreement with all four Powers signing the agreements defining the existing status of West Berlin, and second, that if there is to be a change in the status of West Berlin it must apply also to the status of East Berlin which is governed by the same agreements?

Mr. Heath: I made plain in my speech in the House of Commons on 17th May that we do not acquiesce in any unilateral resolution of the problem.

Mr. M. Foot: Do not the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has outlined as a Western basis for a settlement of the German problem mean that the Russian Government would have to accept that the whole of a reunited Germany should conceivably be incorporated in the Western defence system? Does he think that it is realistic for any Government to suggest that that is what the Russians should approve?

Mr. Heath: The Western peace proposals mean that the Soviet Government would have to accept that there should be self-determination by the Germans. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is opposed to self-determination.

Mr. Silverman: Will the Lord Privy Seal accept that it is common ground that the rights of the Western Powers should be protected, that it is common ground that the West Berliners should be consulted and that they should be protected, and that it is common ground that the anomalous conditions in Berlin are anomalous conditions in East Berlin as well as in West Berlin? Have the Government any proposals for bringing these anomalous conditions to an end, or is the thing to remain as an open festering sore until the third world war breaks out?

Mr. Heath: Whether it be common ground depends upon between whom the hon. Gentleman suggests that it is common ground.

Mr. Silverman: Common ground in the House.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the Western Plan, published on 30th May, to which Her Majesty's Government have agreed, which includes the capture of East German control posts.

Mrs. Hart: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's plan for dealing with a possible emergency situation in Berlin.

Mr. Healey: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning military contingency planning by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on Berlin.

Mr. Heath: As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. S. O. Davies) on 12th May, no plan of this nature has been published. Military plans of any description must necessarily remain secret.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that last week the Minister of Defence was asked if he had read a detailed and unrepudiated article in the New York Herald-Tribune and that he replied that he was not responsible for what appeared in American papers? May I now ask the Lord Privy Seal whether there is or is not a new Western plan which would involve the seizure of the Helmstadt base, which would precipitate a new world war?

Mr. Heath: Of course, I have seen the various articles written by American correspondents containing all sorts of suggestions and speculations. Obviously, all the Western Governments have been consulting on the possible contingencies that may arise in Berlin, and rightly so. We would have been failing in our duty if we had not.

Mrs. Hart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, quite apart from the article in the New York Herald-Tribune, a day or two earlier there was a report in the Daily Express which was alleged to be


based on what a Foreign Office spokesman had said in regard to the emergency plan for Berlin? Is he further aware that if it is becoming clear that his policy and N.A.T.O. policy on Berlin are going to result in the issue of ultimatums and counter-ultimatums by each side there must be something wrong with that policy? Will not he consider an alternative policy, such as a United Nations policy?

Mr. Heath: Anything that appeared in the Press was certainly not based on what a Foreign Office spokesman had said. So far as Her Majesty's Government and their allies are concerned, we are not issuing any ultimatums, and we are not trying to change the present situation.

Mr. Healey: While recognising the need for contingency planning by the military, particularly in view of the Soviet Government's threat, unilaterally and without the agreement of the cosignatories, to transfer some of the responsibilities which they accepted at the end of the war, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would not agree that it must remain the responsibility of the political authorities in all the four countries concerned to decide where and when these contingency plans should be carried out according to the circumstances of the case when they arise?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir: that is absolutely right. The contingency planning must be done in any part of the world under political directives, and the decisions must remain political decisions.

Brussels Treaty

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, before further revision of the Brussels Treaty is considered which has the effect of increasing the military strength of the Federal Republic of Germany, he will bring the proposal before the House for its endorsement.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Lord Privy Seal what are the latest proposals for raising the limits on German rearmament in the Brussels Treaty submitted to Western European Union; and if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not consent to any further increases in German military strength until the House of Commons has had an opportunity to debate the matter.

Mr. Heath: I would refer to my answers on 31st May to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge), and on the 14th June to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot).

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is no answer at all? Does he not agree that since the Brussels Treaty was first made there has been a drastic revision of all the provisions in that Treaty, and that Western Germany has now become the strongest military Power in Europe? Would he not agree that in a matter of this sort the House ought to be consulted before any further revision of the Treaty is made?

Mr. Heath: There have been four amendments to the Brussels Treaty, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend, the procedure for making these amendments is laid down. There is no obligation on the Government to secure ratification for these amendments. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have the matter discussed in the House of Commons, that is a matter to be arranged in the usual way.

Mr. Swingler: Does not the Lord Privy Seal agree that a substantial change has been made since the Brussels Treaty was negotiated? How does he justify the Government taking dictatorial powers in this matter and consenting to Western Germany becoming the dominant military Power in Western Europe? Has not the Government an obligation to the House of Commons to consult the House about a change of policy?

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government have taken no dictatorial powers in this matter. It is well known that there are a large number of international agreements on which it is not necessary to secure ratification from Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to debate the matter, that is a matter to be arranged in the usual way.

Mr. Shinwell: Have not the right hon. Gentleman and his Government consented to Western Germany becoming the strongest military Power in Europe, and is not that a matter to be considered by hon. Members opposite? Why


does the right hon. Gentleman talk about me arranging for a debate, when he knows that I have no power in this matter?

Mr. Heath: I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the four amendments which have been made to the Brussels Treaty have made the Federal German Republic the strongest military power in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions — KUWAIT (TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION)

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Lord Privy Seal in what circumstances and for what purpose it became necessary to make the Kuwait (Repealing) Order, 1961, laid before Parliament on 1st June, 1961, terminating Her Majesty's jurisdiction within the territories of the Ruler of Kuwait, soon after arrangements for the exercise of such jurisdiction had been made by the Kuwait Orders of 1959 and 1960.

Mr. Heath: The Kuwait (Repealing) Order, 1961, became necessary because the process of transferring jurisdiction to the Ruler has now been completed. The final Queen's Regulation transferring jurisdiction was made on 1st April, 1961.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Lard Privy Seal aware that the Repealing Order has caused a great deal of concern in Kuwait, particularly since it does not seem to have been made at the request of the Ruler? Why was it necessary to terminate the existing jurisdiction so early as 1st July?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman has a Question down about the latter part of his supplementary question. This policy has been going on since 1959—there were the two Orders of 1959 and 1960—and, of course, it has been done in the closest co-operation with the Ruler as part of the general transference of jurisdiction.

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any prior consultation took place with the judges, officials and lawyers practising in the British Courts referred to in the Kuwait (Repealing) Order, 1961, laid before Parliament on 1st June 1961, before the making of the Order; and why no provisions have been

made in respect of pending or part-heard cases and for the preservation and protection of the rights of British and British-protected litigants.

Mr. Heath: The Kuwait (Repealing) Order, 1961, was the natural outcome of the Kuwait (Amendment) Order, 1960, prior to which the judges of the courts were consulted. The 1960 Order and subsequent Queen's Regulations providing for the transfer of jurisdiction made the intention of Her Majesty's Government clear to all persons, including lawyers practising in the British Courts The final Transfer Regulation of 1st April, 1961, provided that outstanding cases would continue to be heard by Her Majesty's courts. The Repealing Order Gives notice that the courts will close on 1st July. I am assured that the period of three months which has thus been allowed is sufficient for the cases outstanding on 1st April to be cleared in accordance with the normal procedure.

Mr. Johnson: I accept that transfer of jurisdiction was inevitable, but can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why specific protection should not have been given to pending and part-heard cases and, in particular, to appeals now before the British courts? Is he aware that there is a substantial backlog of cases in the Kuwaiti courts and the result of the Order is likely to be interminable delay in pending cases since they will be heard under different jurisdiction operating under a different legal procedure and probably with a different substantive law, apart from the fact that all the documents in any case will have to be translated into Arabic? Does the Lord Privy Seal regard that as satisfactory?

Mr. Heath: We were advised that the period of three months between 1st April on which the transfer was made and the closing of the courts on 1st July would permit time for these cases to be disposed of. Since the Order was made, we have heard that it is possible that one case will not be concluded by 1st July. We have complete confidence that it can thereafter be dealt with by the Kuwaiti courts.

Mr. Fletcher: Will not the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again? While there is no possible objection in principle to the making of these orders, and handing over jurisdiction to the


courts of Kuwait, is he aware that there is considerable protest at the speed with which it is being done, and the failure to protect those litigants who have commenced proceedings in the British courts and cannot get them completed in the time allowed? The time allowed by the Order is unreasonably short. Will he not look into it again?

Mr. Heath: As I said, we have had one case brought to our attention. However, if there are other cases which the hon. Gentleman would like me to consider, I will be glad to look into them.

Mr. Johnson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN FINANCIAL AGREEMENT

Mr. Wall: asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) how many British nationals have been allowed to transfer out of Egypt the £5,000 per head allowed under the Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement; how many he estimates still wish to take advantage of this Agreement; and what he is doing to speed up the repatriation of these funds;
(2) to what extent the Government of the United Arab Republic have implemented the undertaking given in March to release or repatriate £E1,000 per head of those entitled under the terms of the Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement.

Mr. Heath: I regret that the full information asked for in the first and second parts of my hon. Friend's first Question is not available. As he may have seen from a notice which appeared in the Press on 12th June, the British subjects concerned are now being asked to supply it. Meanwhile Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo are continuing to press the United Arab Republic Government to give full and early effect to their obligations under the Agreement.
According to the latest information, the United Arab Republic Government have given permission for the transfer of up to one thousand Egyptian pounds on each application in the case of one

hundred applications since they gave the undertaking referred to by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there has been virtually no transfer from the U.A.R. because of the shortage of sterling? Have not the Government some responsibility in this matter, as they permitted the run-down of the U.A.R. sterling balances in this country? Will my right hon. Friend look again into this matter, which is causing great distress to a number of people?

Mr. Heath: Since we made the arrangements with the U.A.R. Government that they would permit the transfer of £E1,000 into sterling in each individual case, I believe that the scheme has been working reasonably smoothly.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: If my right hon. Friend cannot give us an assurance that in the foreseeable future substantially the whole of these outstanding claims will he met, will he give some assurance that steps will be taken to ensure that those who are suffering as a result of this failure to repay what is owed do not suffer unduly?

Mr. Heath: I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance at the moment. We are using all our influence with the U.A.R. Government to have the maximum transfer of these funds at present in Egypt. We accepted this scheme, particularly to help those who have small claims, and we hope that the Egyptian Government will soon be able to transfer the full amount.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (HEADQUARTERS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, following Mr. Khrushchev's proposal that the United Nations Headquarters should be moved to Vienna or Moscow, he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this matter.

Mr. Godber: I am not aware that any formal proposal to move the United Nations Headquarters has yet been made to the Organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING VESSEL "RED CRUSADER" (INCIDENT)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) when he received the invitation of the Danish Government, transmitted to him through the Danish Ambassador in London, to co-operate with the Danish Government in the appointment of a three-man commission to investigate and report on the recent incident when an armed Danish frigate fired on and damaged the unarmed Scottish vessel "Red Crusader"; and what reply he has sent;
(2) if he has yet received from the commander of the British Fisheries Protection Squadron his report on the recent incident at sea when a Danish armed frigate fired on and damaged the unarmed Scottish fishing vessel "Red Crusader"; and if he will make a statement, indicating what steps he is now taking to re-establish and to maintain good relations between the British and Danish Governments so as to prevent a recurrence of such incidents in future.

Mr. Heath: I have received from my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty copies of the relevant reports to the Admiralty about this incident. Her Majesty's Government have replied to the Danish proposal for the appointment of a commission of inquiry, which was received on 10th June and of which I informed the House on 12th June, that they are agreeable in principle to the appointment of such a commission and are urgently considering the details of the Danish proposals. Her Majesty's Government hope that as a result of the work of the Commission any misunderstandings about the matter between the two Governments will be removed. I naturally hope that there will be no repetition of this unfortunate incident.

Mr. Hughes: Would the Lord Privy Seal say where and when this Commission will sit, what evidence will be called before it, when it is likely to arrive at a decision? Does he realise that it is a most unfortunate thing that differences of this kind should arise between the two nations, Denmark and Britain, hitherto friendly? What steps is he taking to preclude differences of this kind in the future?

Mr. Heath: We greatly regret differences of opinion between the two countries. These matters are under discussion between ourselves and the Danish Government at the moment.

Mr. Prior: Will my right hon. Friend instruct the Commission to look at the rather wider issues involved? There has been a case recently where there has been trouble in the North Sea. Could not the Commission have a look at that at the same time to see if we can try to restore the good relations which have existed between the fishing industries of this country and Denmark?

Mr. Heath: The scope of this inquiry is still under discussion, but I think that it must be confined to the events connected with this incident.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has yet received the Eleventh Interim Report from the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Vietnam; and when it will be published.

Mr. Godber: This report has not yet been received; I expect it to be published in the usual way once it has been circulated to all the Governments concerned.

Mr. Warbey: Is it not unlikely that this report will be able to deal with the recent happenings which included the unofficial decision of the American Government to reinforce their military aid advisory group in South Vietnam and to send American officers to lead the South Vietnamese forces in guerrilla activities? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore ask the International Commission to make a special investigation and to report on this flagrant violation of the Geneva Agreements?

Mr. Godber: I think that my right hon. Friend did deal with that aspect upon a previous Question by the hon. Member. If anyone violates the Geneva Agreements—and I hope, incidentally, that the hon. Member is not forgetting the Communist violence now tormenting that unhappy country—then it will be the function of the I.C.C. to report the


facts and of the Co-Chairmen to consider what action should be taken; but we cannot be asked to speak hypothetically on the functions of other Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. HELENA (BAHRAINI PRISONERS)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal what action he proposes to take following the success of the habeas corpus application made by the three Bahraini citizens imprisoned since December, 1956, in St. Helena.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) in view of the release of the three Bahraini political prisoners on St. Helena following the habeas corpus application, if he will now make a statement regarding the arrangement Her Majesty's Government are making for the transport of the three men to a place of their own choosing; whether he is willing to grant them political asylum in the United Kingdom; and what compensation he is proposing to pay them for four years' unlawful detention;
(2) if Her Majesty's Government will meet the full costs of the legal actions, and other related costs, taken by the three Bahraini citizens who have been unlawfully detained on St. Helena for four years; and what other action he proposes to take to recompense those concerned in this case.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make with regard to the successful application for a writ of habeas corpus to the Chief Justice of St. Helena made on behalf of three Bahraini prisoners.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Lord Privy Seal what compensation Her Majesty's Government is proposing to pay to the three Bahraini political prisoners who have now been released following habeas corpus petition after four years' unlawful detention.

Mr. Heath: The court in St. Helena granted the applications of Abdul Aziz Shemlan, Abdur Rahman Al-Bakr and Abd Ali Alaiwat for writs of habeas corpus on 13th June. Her Majesty's Government will meet the reasonable

costs of travel by the three men to any destination which they may choose, up to a distance equivalent to that from St. Helena to Bahrain, and are assisting the men to leave St. Helena on 1st July. I am not aware that any request for political asylum has been received from these men, whose status is that of British protected persons.
From the telegraphic report, the judgment of the court appears to have been based not on the ground that there was any defect in the original trial of the men but that the warrant under which they were transferred from custody of the Ruler in 1956 was invalid. The full report will be studied when it is received.
Costs have been awarded to the applicants in the present action. As regards costs of earlier actions and the question of compensation, I am not at present in a position to make any statement. Her Majesty's Government had already arranged and paid for the transport of the prisoners' legal advisers to and from St. Helena, and had given assistance in this respect during the earlier case in 1959.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is perfect poetic justice that the Government were caught out on a technical hitch, because this technical hitch was characteristic of the indecent haste with which the whole operation was carried out in Bahrain, and will the Government now prop up the wounded pride of the Foreign Secretary and make full redress to these men who have been so wrongfully dealt with?

Mr. Heath: If the hon. Gentleman is placing so much substance on the technical hitch then, presumably, he is arguing that the Government in substance were correct.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a satisfactory end to four years of the most unfortunate and unsatisfactory cat-and mouse game which he and his predecessors conducted in relation to these most unfortunate men? May I ask him when he intends to announce when the compensation to these men will be paid and what the amount will be, and whether he is going to make an apology in regard to the statement he made on 8th February to the effect that it was clear


that all three prisoners had requested no further legal proceedings should he taken in their name, and will withdraw the imputation against the solicitor involved in this case who has behaved most correctly throughout it?

Mr. Heath: I have nothing to withdraw, as the hon. Member will see if he consults the record. I gave to the House at the time the details of the message which we had received from Al Bakr, who asked that he should be returned to Bahrain and that no further legal action should be taken, and that request has been undenied by Al Bakr throughout this time. In view of the ambiguity we ourselves arranged for the other two men to be interviewed by the Governor in the presence of a friend, as I stated at the time, whereupon they said their wishes were, if they could not be freed, they should be re turned to Bahrain.
As I explained to the House, the Government had no power to release or to order the release of these men. It could be done only by a court, because of the separation of the Executive and Judiciary. As far as any further statement about compensation is concerned, I cannot, of course, say when it will be possible to make such a statement. We have not yet received the full report of the court's proceedings, and must be given time to consider this.

Mr. W. Yates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply today is quite satisfactory, but will he bear this in mind as well, that when I visited Bahrain and spoke to them they did not seem to be very confident about the standing of the plot? When are those who were really involved in the plot to be brought to trial?

Mr. Manuel: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the granting of this legal writ for the release of these prisoners places a clear liability on the Government to make restitution to these men? Who can gauge the loss and damage they have suffered over these four years, and what those four years have meant to them and their families? Surely the right hon. Gentleman should be a little more warm-blooded than he is in standing at that Box and being so coldly dispassionate about a matter which arouses very deep feelings in this House?

Mr. Heath: I fully recognise the implications of this, but I have said I am not in a position to make a statement today.

Mr. Paget: Surely the Lord Privy Seal must realise that what he has said about the statement on 8th February will not do. Is he aware that this is a matter which I raised on the Adjournment before Christmas, when the right hon. Gentleman promised a statement? In that statement he informed us that the dearest wish of these three men was to go back to Bahrain where they had the utmost confidence in the treatment that they would receive at the hands of the Ruler and that their only desire was to withdraw these proceedings. We then find that a most remarkable change has happened in their minds. Will not the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more?

Mr. Heath: The hon. and learned Member, with his customary skill, has exaggerated. If he is prepared to quote my words the House will find that they are somewhat different. It is perfectly true that at a later stage two of the men changed their minds and then decided again that they would like to bring legal proceedings. That never applied to the third man until after the decision by the first.

Mr. Healey: In view of the fact that the Government's actions have been proved to be juridically illegal as well as politically unwise, as the majority of the House has believed for a long time, and in view of the fact that the Government have proved to be out of touch with some of the major elements of fact in the case, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give an assurance that there is no possibility of such a cavalier attitude being adopted towards justice in other issues in the Gulf at present?

Mr. Heath: The Government have not been out of touch with matters of fact about this. These are matters of the utmost legal complexity, and this is the second time that the case has been before the courts. As to the wisdom of this, it is true that as a result of this action quiet was restored to the Gulf after a period of intense tension after the Suez incident. When, after a period of five years, we reviewed this situation


we felt that it was no longer right that these men should be detained in the custody of Her Majesty's Government, and the proposal was made to the Ruler that either they should be offered clemency or they should be returned to him for imprisonment in Bahrain.

Mr. Stonehouse: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? On 8th February, the Minister concerned in this case made a misleading and, indeed, in some respects false statement to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wants to make assertions of that kind he must take appropriate steps. I do not think that we can debate the question of a statement made and whether it should be unmade now at Question Time.

Mr. Stonehouse: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance on what steps the House can take to ensure that the Minister makes an apology to the people involved in this case and who have been gravely implicated by his statement?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to give guidance in this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member can find some place where he might obtain assistance. If not, if he likes to see me I will do what I can to help him.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (WARTIME SPANISH REFUGEES)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish a White Paper giving details of the help given by Spanish refugees in France during the last war in smuggling British airmen out of France.

Mr. Godber: No, Sir.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that whilst Franco was sending soldiers to help Hitler, democratic Spanish refugees were risking their lives in Gestapo-ridden France, particularly at Perpignan, to help Britain? Is not the Foreign Secretary's recent action a gross betrayal of people who no longer have anything to offer us, in order to curry favour with a Fascist dictator?

Mr. Godber: Whilst accepting that help was given in certain circumstances, the reason why my original answer was

"No" was that I am advised that insufficient records exist for that purpose. As for the hon. Member's supplementary question, I do not think that extravagant statements like that are helpful. In the interests of Europe and the world, it is better that we should seek to maintain relations with countries whether they be of extreme Right-wing character or whether they be Communist.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONGO

Mr. Prentice: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will make an additional payment into the United Nations fund for the Congo, and call on other nations to do likewise, In order to give adequate support to the recent financial agreement between the United Nations and the Central Government of the Congo.

Mr. Godber: Her Majesty's Government are glad to learn that a financial agreement has been concluded between the United Nations and the Congolese Government. However, the United Nations authorities have as yet made no appeal for additional payments to the United Nations Fund for the Congo. Her Majesty's Government have already paid 3 million dollars to the Fund and have promised another 2 million dollars providing other members of the United Nations also contribute their share.

Mr. Prentice: Would the Minister agree, on the one hand, that the agreement is very welcome because it involves closer working relationships between the central Government and the United Nations advisers and on the other hand it has involved substantial payment from a United Nations fund to the central Congo Government which have left that fund at a very low level? Would it not be a pity if future activities were hamstrung by lack of funds? Would the Minister keep an eye, in consultation with other Governments, on the question whether further payments can be made if they are considered necessary?

Mr. Godber: I entirely agree, and I am glad to think that things have developed in this way. It augurs more hope for the country than we dared to expect a few months ago. As to further funds being made available, I take notice of


the point and I will certainly keep a close watch on it.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Can my hon. Friend say whether any funds have been allocated by the Communist bloc countries for this purpose?

Mr. Godber: I am afraid that I have to give a very unfavourable answer. I regret that they have not been so forthcoming as we would wish in this respect.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SECRETARY (VISIT TO WASHINGTON)

Mr. Henderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the recent consultation in Washington between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the United States Secretary of State, and on the basic agreements achieved.

Mr. Heath: As I told the House on 5th June, my noble Friend felt that it would be useful, while he was in the United States for two speaking engagements, to have talks with the United States Government about the problems which are likely to face our two countries later in the year.

Mr. Henderson: Is that all the information the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give the House? In view of the Press conference held by the Foreign Secertary, in which he dealt with quite a number of matters, is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give us some information? If he is not prepared to add to his Answer, may I ask whether we can take it that Her Majesty's Government are considering the proposal put forward by Senator Mansfield and others that the whole of Berlin should be made a free city under the protection of the United Nations and with free access maintained for all who wish to visit Berlin?

Mr. Heath: At the Press conference my noble Friend answered questions about British policy, but naturally he did not explain the contents of the talks between himself and members of the American Administration, which I understand were confidential. As for Senator Mansfield's speech, both my noble Friend and the American Secretary of State noted what he said.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Has any progress been made about the admission of China to a seat in the United Nations?

Mr. Heath: I cannot give details of the conversation.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENEVA CONFERENCE ON NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the progress at the Geneva conference on nuclear tests.

Mr. Godber: Since the publication of the Soviet aide-memoire, which had been given to President Kennedy in Vienna, discussions have continued on the points covered in it. There has, I regret to say, been no progress. The United States Government have now published its reply to the Soviet aide-memoire. Her Majesty's Government agree with the views expressed by the United States Government.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a situation now exists in which Great Britain can give a moral lead to the rest of the world and particularly to the nuclear Powers? Is he aware that it is in the interests of mankind that Britain should advocate the complete cessation of nuclear tests?

Mr. Godber: Britain has been working very hard to try to achieve success in these negotiations and we are extremely disappointed that recent months have not shown any response from the Soviet side. We will continue gladly to do anything we can if there is any prospect of a successful outcome of these negotiations, but I must admit that present prospects are not by any means good.

Mr. Bossom: Can by hon. Friend say whether it is true that the Americans are contemplating the resumption of nuclear tests?

Mr. Godber: I have nothing to indicate definitely. There have been certain comments in the Press about this, but I understand that any such suggestions have been related to underground tests which of course would have nothing whatever to do with the pollution of the atmosphere.

Mr. Healey: Whilst expressing the strong hope that the Americans will not resume testing, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can say whether Mr. Khrushchev intends to carry out his threats to hold atomic tests, which he would not say would be underground or otherwise, if there is no agreement in Geneva?

Mr. Godber: I have no information about that obviously, but that does exemplify the dangers if we cannot get a solution. That is why we were extremely disappointed that the last few weeks have been so negative.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is there any intention of adjourning the conference, or are we to take it that the discussions will continue indefinitely?

Mr. Godber: The discussions are still continuing, and as long as we see hope of success we will certainly not wish to terminate them.

NORTHERN RHODESIA

Mr. Callaghan (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the threatened general strike in Northern Rhodesia.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): No, Sir.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are reports in the Press today that the African population may stop work and bring the Copperbelt to a standstill if the rumours about the proposed constitutional talks are true? Will not he give an assurance that there will be no tampering with the details of the White Paper in which the new Constitution was announced in February?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise, if he reflects on the terms of his own supplementary question, that what has been reported in the Press is that if decisions that are regarded as unsatisfactory are reached, and if they are not received by a certain day, then it may be necessary to resort to measures of strike action. No less than three hypothetical situations are involved in that. I cannot conceivably help the House in relation to such a situation.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is no intention of tampering with the White Paper in anything but machinery details? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is the only member of Her Majesty's Government in whom the Africans have any considerable faith? If he wishes to retain that faith, and if Northern Rhodesia is to go forward peacefully, he must not depart from the conditions laid down in the White Paper which, however unsatisfactory, might at least have been acceptable to considerable sections of opinion.

Mr. Macleod: Because I do not comment I am not to be taken as agreeing with what the hon. Member has said. Indeed, I do not agree with it at all. It was made clear in the statement, agreed both by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by Sir Roy Welensky, that although it is right for discussions to take place any changes made should be within the framework and the spirit of the White Paper. That remains the position.

Mr. Callaghan: When will the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is a threatened general strike in Northern Rhodesia. Do not hon. Members opposite realise that? When will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about any proposed changes, so that the position can become clearer?

Mr. Macleod: I would hope later this week, or, at the latest, the first day or so of next week.

WEST INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Kin Macleod): I will, with permission, make a statement on the West Indian Constitutional Conference, which concluded at Lancaster House on Friday, 16th June.
Its conclusions, setting out the principal features of the Constitution under which the West Indies may move to independence, will be published as a White Paper and will be presented to the House as soon as it is possible to arrange for its simultaneous publication in the West Indies.
There will be a further conference in London, opening on 8th January, 1962, which will deal with defence, financial, economic, international relations and other matters which concern the independence of the Federation. Her Majesty's Government will discuss with the West Indies at this conference the form and scale of the economic assistance that the United Kingdom will accord the Federation after independence.
In deference, however, to representations made during the Conference on behalf of the smaller territories concerning the urgency of their need for development, Her Majesty's Government have stated their readiness to send a small official mission to the West Indies, as soon as this can be mounted, with the object of considering, in consultation with the unit Governments of the Windward and Leeward Islands and the Federal Government, any particular short-term projects which are of special urgency or importance to the smaller islands but which, for one reason or another, have not found a place within the existing approved development programmes.
The United States Government have agreed to be associated with this mission, and we warmly welcome this. Her Majesty's Government and the United States authorities would respectively consider the provision of finance for such projects as the mission might recommend. In the case of the United Kingdom contribution, this finance will be additional to the existing colonial development and welfare allocations.
These arrangements represent a special approach to a specific problem and do not in any way prejudge or prejudice the total amount of assistance which Her Majesty's Government may be able to accord the West Indies in the light of the later discussions.
With so many delegations present, it was inevitable that certain of them should record dissent on particular items. It was made clear that, in accepting the scheme as a whole for the purpose of presentation to their Legislatures, delegates would be fully entitled to explain the stand which they had taken on particular matters. Nevertheless, all delegations were satisfied that the agreed scheme was one which would give the West Indies its opportunity to achieve independence, to

play an effective and constructive rôle in international affairs, and to provide more adequately than hitherto certain common services.
Against this background, the Conference agreed to request Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to take the necessary stops to revise the Federal and Unit Constitutions. The Conference agreed that it would not be necessary to hold elections in the unit territories specifically in relation to independence but that a Federal General Election should be held, on the basis of the new Constitution, not later than six weeks after Independence Day.
Her Majesty's Government have, therefore, agreed that, provided this scheme is accepted by the Legislatures and peoples concerned, they will introduce legislation to grant the West Indies independence on 31st May, 1962.
The Conference also expressed the desire of the West Indies to become, on independence, a member of the Common wealth. Her Majesty's Government warmly welcome this proposal, and at the appropriate time will consult the other Commonwealth Governments with a view to securing their concurrence.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House warmly welcome the decision of Her Majesty's Government to grant the West Indies independence on 31st May, 1962, provided that the particular scheme worked out is accepted by the various Legislatures and peoples, and that it is also the desire of the West Indies to become a member of the Commonwealth?
We are in some difficulty, because, of course, we have not seen the White Paper, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could at least give us a little guidance on this matter. Could he say, broadly speaking, what subjects are to be reserved to the islands and are not to come within Federal jurisdiction? What is the position regarding the movement of labour, which, I believe, has been one of the difficulties in the Conference?
Can he also say a little more about economic assistance after independence? Is this likely to take the form of a continuation of colonial development and welfare grants, or will it take the form


of loans? Has he something new in mind which has not been accorded to other territories which have reached independence?

Mr. Macleod: The White Paper will, I hope, be issued on Friday or Saturday. It is a comprehensive document.
As far as the smaller units are concerned, there is a sort of hang-over conference this week to decide matters in relation to unit Constitutions for the Windward and Leeward Islands, so it is not possible to be precise on all these details yet. In general, however, it is a rather loose form of federation and, as the House probably knows, there is considerable conflict and some tension between the islands which wanted a loose form of federation and those which wanted a much more centralised form, particularly in relation to economic planning.
A rather elaborate formula was worked out about freedom of movement within the islands, and I will not try to paraphrase it. I hope that the House will study it carefully. It provides for reviews at the end of four years and again after nine years.
I would rather not be drawn into details about finance. I have no new plans, as it were, in my mind. There will, no doubt, be some continuation of colonial development and welfare in the form of grants, and the West Indies will also be eligible for special assistance, perhaps in defence matters, and also, of course, for Commonwealth assistance loans.

Mr. Fisher: From this side of the House, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the successful outcome of this extremely difficult Conference? We do not yet know any of the details, but would my right hon. Friend himself consider that the result of the Conference, subject, of course, to the success of the referendum in Jamaica later this year, provides an adequate basis and framework for the independence of the West Indies next year in the context of a united and effective federation?

Mr. Macleod: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I am all for being congratulated on schemes of which the House does not know the details. It seems to me a much safer procedure.
Seriously speaking, it is, frankly, too early to rejoice about this scheme. Everybody who knows anything about the West Indies knows perfectly well that there are tensions between those who wanted a loose and those who wanted a firm form of federation. There are also inevitable tensions between, as it were, the haves and the have-nots in the West Indies. There are many discussions taking place in unit Legislatures which may prove difficult.
All the same, I hold to my conviction that it is essential for the islands, great and small alike, to be bound together in federation. I believe that all of them, whether they are large powerful units like Jamaica and Trinidad, or small, like Monserrat, will gain a great deal from federal government and that the scheme, which we have together hammered out with a good deal of difficulty, will prove successful.

Mrs. Castle: Have not the discussions at the Conference made clear that any move by Her Majesty's Government to introduce restrictions on West Indian imigration into this country would ruin any hope of a successful launching of the West Indian Federation? Will the Colonial Secretary, therefore, use his enlightened influence in Her Majesty's Government to block the introduction of any such restriction?

Mr. Macleod: There is no reference to this matter in the White Paper, although we spent most of a morning discussing it. As the hon. Lady knows, Her Majesty's Government have been watching with concern the rising graph of those who come into this country, but I have no statement to make on the matter, nor did I make one to the Conference.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, as far as they have gone, the negotiations have appeared to the world generally to be a model? Will he impress upon the United States Government that, in addition to giving financial help, it could contribute by releasing the territories which it got on the cheap during the war at a much earlier date than it intends?

Mr. Macleod: The last negotiations about the West Indian bases were extremely satisfactory and the outcome was satisfactory not only for the West


Indies, but for the United States and Britain. I would like to pay a tribute to the United States. I got in touch with the authorities there and got an answer within 48 hours on the very difficult question of economic aid to the smaller islands. The way in which they expedited matters was very imaginative.

Mr. Chapman: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate of what the Federal revenue will be under the system of revenue from Customs duties? Is he aware that many of us have been very distressed by the small amount of money on which the Federal Government have had to manage? Will there be a sufficient improvement in revenue for federal affairs to be conducted with the sort of propriety that a Federation of this nature needs?
Secondly, in the arrangements made and the accommodation reached with Jamaica over such things as income tax and industrial development remaining on the reserved list, can we now be hopeful that noshing stands in the way of a successful outcome of the referendum in Jamaica on federation?

Mr. Macleod: We had very much in mind the first factor mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The present amount is about 9 million British West Indies dollars, which is entirely inadequate, as he knows very well. The figure will go up to about 28 million dollars and will rise higher still later. I am sure that that will enable the West Indies to play a full part.
We had very long and, frankly, very difficult discussions on the question of what was the reserved list which, incidentally, we have abolished, and the place on it of income tax and development. But, in the end, we found a solution which was acceptable to all except one delegation.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Colonial Secretary one further question, but preface it by saying how much we appreciate his frankness in telling us that we are not through the difficulties yet? In view of the enormous importance of the economic problems facing the smaller islands, which I believe to be one of the difficulties in the way of federation, can the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the economic assistance which it is intended, as I gather, that

the United Kingdom will make available after independence?
Does he mean that the C.D. and W. grants will continue as if there had not been independence? Will they be grants or loans? Is C.D.C. to continue its activities, or has the right hon. Gentleman in mind something new? Will this financial assistance be made available—I presume that this is the case—only through the Federal Government for them to dispose of as they think fit, or on some other terms?

Mr. Macleod: The help to the smaller islands falls into two parts. First, I am sending at once a mission, as I have said, to see whether there are small improvements—not small in size, but propects which one can bring swiftly to fruition. In that, we will be helped with the sort of interim grant aid programme of the United States of America.
I would rather not anticipate the January talks too much, but I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that the needs of the smaller islands will be specially considered and that we will take into account the sort of figures which we have been giving in the past in the form of grants-in-aid as a measure of the aid which we should give after independence.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: On the question of the very welcome short-term economic mission by Britain and the United States to the smaller islands, can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any prospect of Canada joining in this enterprise, in view of its oft-stated and benevolent interest in this part of the world?

Mr. Macleod: That is an interesting idea. I am not sure whether it could be arranged in time. Canada has been giving some assistance to the West Indies, as my hon. Friend knows, and I hope that it will continue. It would be very helpful to the newly independent country if it did.

KUWAIT (EXCHANGE OF NOTES)

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on an exchange of Notes with Kuwait.
An exchange of Notes was signed this morning in Kuwait by His Highness the Ruler of Kuwait and by the Political Resident in the Persian Gulf on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. The text will be available as a White Paper in the Vote Office when I sit down.
For some time past the State of Kuwait has possessed entire responsibility for the conduct of its own international relations, and, with the full support of Her Majesty's Government, Kuwait has already joined a number of international organisations as an independent sovereign State.
This development has rendered obsolete and inappropriate the terms of the Anglo-Kuwaiti Agreement of 23rd January, 1899, under which Kuwait undertook not to receive representatives of other Powers or to dispose of her territory, without the prior agreement of Her Majesty's Government.
Her Majesty's Government and the Ruler of Kuwait have agreed that the necessary formal step should be taken to cancel this agreement.
The exchange of Notes which has achieved this also states that relations between the two countries shall continue to be governed by a spirit of close friendship and that when appropriate the two Governments shall consult together on matters of common interest. The Notes conclude by reaffirming the readiness of Her Majesty's Government to assist Kuwait if the Government of Kuwait so request.
On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I would like to extend once more to the independent and sovereign State of Kuwait our warmest good wishes for its continued development and prosperity.

Mr. Healey: While welcoming the repeal of the 1899 Agreement, and hoping that this may set a precedent for bringing our relations with other Persian Gulf States more into line with the facts of the second half of the twentieth entury, may I ask two questions? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, under the situation as it will exist after repeal of the agreement, Britain will still retain any responsibility for the securing of the State of Kuwait against possible foreign aggression? Secondly, has the right hon. Gentleman any information of

the Kuwaiti Government's intentions to exchange diplomatic missions with foreign countries, particularly the United Arab Republic?

Mr. Heath: Our responsibilities for the security of Kuwait against foreign aggression are defined in the Note, and I have described them as affirming the readiness of Her Majesty's Government to assist Kuwait if the Government of Kuwait so request.
As regards the extension of diplomatic relations, the Government of Kuwait are already preparing to set up a foreign service as soon as the necessary organisation can be created and staff trained.
The question of developing relations with other States is now a matter for the Ruler of Kuwait to decide.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in these discussions, the rulers of Kuwait have given any indication that they propose to extend democracy to their territory?

Mr. Heath: That is an entirely separate question, but those who have been to Kuwait know full well how it has made remarkable progress over the last ten years in the way it is organising its resources and using them for the benefit of its people.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May we assume that no change is likely, or contemplated, in the financial basis at present existing between the Kuwait Government and our own?

Mr. Heath: That is not a matter which is covered by Notes or by agreements of this kind. It is a matter of the financial policy of the Government of Kuwait As far as I know, there is no intention to change that policy.

Mr. Healey: Further to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my earlier supplementary question about our military responsibilities in case Kuwait requires our assistance, can he say whether it is intended that in peace time we shall maintain any military forces in Kuwait, and if so, what will be their status?

Mr. Heath: No, Sir. We do not at the moment maintain military forces in Kuwait, and there is no intention aft the moment of so doing.

Mr. Wall: Will the Government continue to maintain a Political Agent in Kuwait, and, if so, will this agreement have very much effect on his functions and duties?

Mr. Heath: The Political Agent will remain in Kuwait. His functions and duties have been gradually changing over the last three years, with the transference of jurisdiction, which has meant a slight change in the nature of some of his staff. Otherwise, his functions will remain the same.

Mr. G. Brown: Is he to remain a Political Agent? Did I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman said that Kuwait was now becoming an independent State open, for example, to join the United Nations and operate its own independent foreign policy? If so, how can we have somebody there who remains the Political Resident?

Mr. Heath: The State of Kuwait has become an independent State, open to join the United Nations, and if the Ruler and the Government so decide we would warmly support their application to join the United Nations.
The British Representative in Kuwait for the time being will retain the title of Political Agent. There has been no request by the Ruler that this title should be changed, but he will carry out the functions which are required of him.

Mr. Brown: Would it not be wise for us to consider changing the title? Is not the Minister indicating that it is of advantage to us that this situation should have been changed and the Agreement of 1899 cancelled? Would it not be an advantage if it were seen by the whole of Arabia that we were not exercising any kind of surveillance in their territories? Would it not be sensible to change the gentleman's title?

Mr. Heath: This is not a matter which has escaped our notice, but I think that it is one to be arranged with the Ruler of Kuwait, and it is also to a certain extent tied up with what I have said, that is, the progress of the foreign service for Kuwait.

Mr. Gaitskell: Are we to understand that further discussions are taking place with the Ruler of Kuwait about this question of the exact status and title of our representative there, and the nature of the functions to be performed by him?

Mr. Heath: There is no question of discussing the functions, because at the moment they are accepted. I would rather not be pressed on the question of the title.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Are our military responsibilities roughly the same as they would be for another member of N.A.T.O., namely, protection against external aggression, or do we have the responsibility to help the Ruler of Kuwait in the event of internal difficulties arising?

Mr. Heath: That is dealt with under sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) of the exchange of Notes, which cover the fact of close consultation between the two Governments.

Mr. Jenkins: What do subparagraphs (c) and (d) say?

Mr. Heath: They cover the question of the two Governments consulting together on matters of common interest and our undertaking that nothing shall affect the readiness of Her Majesty's Government to assist the Government of Kuwait if they request such assistance. That obviously covers the question of external aggression. If the Government of Kuwait request us to consider internal subversion, that is covered also.

Orders of the Day — LICENSING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 17.—(PENALTY FOR UNAUTHO RISED SALES OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR.)

3.55 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: I beg to move, in page 30, line 43 at the end to insert:
and there shall be no supply of intoxicating liquor to any person under eighteen years of age in any club to which this section applies
One of the most important problems which confronts all social workers in youth services and organisations interested in the welfare of young people is how to direct young people into leading useful, law-abiding lives. Speaking to a group of Conservative women last week, the Home Secretary said that the difficult period for young people was the time after they left school at the age of 15 until they were 18. I know that he was referring to crime and adolescent delinquency, but one cannot help feeling that adolescent delinquency is closely allied to adolescents acquiring the taste for alcohol. Therefore, the Home Secretary's statement can be applied to protecting our young folk from acquiring the taste for alcohol. It is because of that that we seek to ensure that clubs will have the responsibility of seeing that no young people under 18 are served with alcohol.
If any evidence is required that that is advisable, one has only to consider the evidence given by social workers like the Salvation Army and youth leaders in all kinds of youth undertakings, that young people can get liquor in clubs. One needs no evidence other than that of the people to whom I have just referred about the adverse effects of alcohol on young people.
I am concerned that young girls under 18 should not be able to obtain alcohol. Many young girls are able to acquire the taste for alcohol, with all its adverse effects, in all kinds of clubs. I regret that in Committee the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper), put up the case that because a parent sometimes

offers a girl a sherry at home he sees no reason why the girl should not be able to get sherry or other forms of alcohol in her tennis club, or in any other club to which she belongs.
The case of a girl being offered a sherry at home is different from that of being offered a sherry in the atmosphere of a club. The parent takes the responsibility there. The young person is in the home, with all the restraining influence that a good home ought to have. But when that young person goes into a club and is allowed to have a drink, all kinds of other pressures are exerted. The parent is not there to say that only one sherry shall be given. More and more drink can be acquired in that atmosphere.
The Amendment merely seeks to apply to clubs the same sort of responsibility which public houses have at present. We all have a moral responsibility not to put any temptation in the way of young people under the age of 18 years which could in any way lead them astray. Under no circumstances should young boys or girls be served with alcohol in any club or public house. Once that happens they are placed in an extremely difficult situation.
We are aware of the pressure which clubs have brought to bear on Members since the Bill was introduced, and that pressure has been well organised. I want to make it clear that the Amendment does not introduce any new application of the law. Clubs will still not be open to police inspection except through a representation to a magistrate and the issue of a warrant. The Amendment is purely in the interests of young people, and I cannot see why clubs should not take on this added responsibility.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I appreciate the good intentions of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) but I think that she is mistaken in her belief that the Amendment will achieve her purpose. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see fit to resist it. First, it is unnecessary, and, secondly, it is rather undesirable. It is unnecessary because the overwhelming majority of clubs which would be allowed to sell liquor


under the Bill already have a minimum age limit of 18 years for membership.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: That is probaby correct, but there is no statutory provision. A boy of 16 or even 14 years of age could become a member as the law now stands. Is it not purely a matter of chance? It is a question of the way the club is run.

Mr. Johnson: I can speak only for those clubs which I know. Young people under 18 years of age cannot be members of Conservative clubs, and I believe that the majority of larger clubs in London have a lower age limit of 18. In cases where a member has to be elected it is highly improbable that members under 18 would be accepted.
I would also hope that those clubs where young people go in large numbers would be prevented from becomings registered in the same way that Clause 2 (4) prevent restaurants from obtaining licences if they are largely frequented by young people. I know that there are many licensed sports clubs and similar clubs to which young people can go and play golf, or tennis, where they might be able to go into the bar and have a drink, but I cannot think that that will do a great deal of harm.
The ordinary person who joins such a club to play games is not likely, after playing those games, to want to drink anything more intoxicating than shandy, or perhaps beer and cider. I cannot believe that that would give him a taste for alcohol later in life, or do him any real harm. We do not wish to inflict upon sports clubs a mass of rules and regulations which now apply to licensed premises.
Furthermore, what the hon. Lady has in mind is defeated by another Clause. Although, under Section 126 of the Licensing Act, 1953, a person under the age of 14 cannot be in the bar of licensed premises during permitted hours—and no one quarrels with that—and under Clause 17 (8) a person under 18 may not consume intoxicating liquor in a bar on licensed premises. Under Clause 18 (1) not only can children go into a bar. They can, if over 16, consume beer, porter, cider, or perry with a meal taken at the bar, if it is being used for the purpose of providing table

meals and not exclusively for serving drink.
If a young person can obtain a drink of cider with his meal—and I suggest to the hon. Lady that some forms of cider, like Pomagne or hard cider are considerably more intoxicating than beer—he should be allowed to drink shandy after a game of tennis, golf, or some other form of exercise. We would be imposing an impossible task on the stewards of clubs if we agreed to the Amendment, although I agree that a difficult task is imposed on licensees, who have to decide whether a young person is 16, 17½, or 18 years of age.
The Amendment is undesirable, in that it will defeat its own object. It is general experience that to prohibit something immediately makes people want it. Nothing did more to encourage young people in the United States to drink than the introduction of prohibition. I was there during a good deal of the prohibition years, and I know that, before prohibition, although some young people would never have thought of having a drink when they went to a dance or anything of that kind, after prohibition no young girl would go with her young man to a dance unless he had a bottle of gin with him. The same thing could happen here.
I believe that clubs will take their own initiative to discourage young people coming in to drink. We do not want any more of this rather grandmotherly legislation—and I mean no disrespect when I say that. We want rather less of it. The Amendment is unnecessary and undesirable. It will do more harm than good, and I hope that my hon. Friend will advise the House not to accept it and that the House will see fit to take his advice.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) has proved too much. At the beginning of his speech he stated that the majority of clubs did not admit people as members 'until they were 18 years of age.

Mr. E. Johnson: I did make an exception of sports clubs. Perhaps I did not make myself clear, but that was what I meant.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but surely it makes


no difference. If some clubs admit as members people who are below the age of 18, and others bar them, it is still obvious that if this is a desirable Amendment it should be accepted. On the hon. Gentleman's own showing there are some clubs which admit members below the age of 18.
I support this Amendment because it is common sense. In the Licensing Act of 1953 there is a prohibition on the holder of an on-licence from serving a young person under 18 years of age with intoxicating liquor. When we discussed an earlier part of the Bill the Minister of State agreed that he would insert into the Bill at a later stage a similar prohibition in respect of off-licences. Now the position is that neither the licensees of on-licences or off-licences can supply anyone who is below the age of 18 with intoxicating liquor. The only question which arises is whether clubs are in such a different position that they should be exempted.
The point was made by the hon. Member for Blackley and referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), that it may be difficult in certain circumstances to know whether the law is being broken in some clubs. That cannot be helped. Short of giving the police the right to enter and inspect them without a warrant, we shall have to accept the fact that in some clubs it might possibly be that young people under 18 are supplied with intoxicating liquor. But if this prohibition was in the Bill, most clubs would abide by the law and see to it that no young people got intoxicating liquor.
The reason why some of us desire this prohibition is we think that 18 is young enough for a person to begin to acquire a taste for alcohol. Particularly young women, who may, when under the influence of strong drink, not be as responsible for their actions as otherwise they would be. There are temptations, particularly in certain clubs, which this prohibition would help people to avoid.
When the Minister of State met a deputation from the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches recently, he stated that it might be possible for a young girl to have a glass of sherry in her own home, even though she were under the age of 18. That is true. But

home conditions are different from the conditions to be found in clubs. Very often, in a club it is considered the grown-up thing to take liquor. If this prohibition were applied, it would obviate a temptation to which I am sure that the Minister would not like to see young people exposed.
The hon. Member for Blackley referred to certain parts of the Licensing Act, 1953, and said that under certain circumstances perry and cider could be taken by young persons with food. That is true. But, in addition, and in the same Act, there is a prohibition on the supply of liquor to young persons under 18. All we ask is that the prohibition which applies to on-licence holders, and is to apply to off-licence holders, should be extended to clubs. It is a tidy, reasonable and sensible thing to do and I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I hope that my right hon. Friend and the House will not accept this Amendment. It appears to me that it is designed to impose on the private lives of people something which has been restricted to public places. No one has yet drawn a distinction between the genuine club and a public house. We have been told that it would be a neat and tidy arrangement to apply this prohibition to clubs, because it already applies to on-licences and may be applied to off-licences.
Surely clubs are a different matter. Already, we have taken steps in the Bill to deal with the "phoney" club, the sort of club people think of when they discuss adolescent delinquency and drunkenness. Now we are considering the normal, private club, where the members regard themselves as being in a private place. If we are proposing to interfere to the extent suggested in this Amendment, and place a prohibition on the habits and behaviour of members in private clubs, we shall be getting close to the point where we may begin to start to interfere with what they do in their own homes.
Clubs are not like public houses. People cannot just wander into them because they would like a drink and because, although they are under 18 years of age, they may get one. A person who is under 18, or of any other


age, cannot, if lie is not a member of a club, enter the club premises without being escorted by a member. This is where we return to the question of personal responsibility. Sometimes I think that Members of Parliament go too far when they imagine that they can legislate for the responsibility of individuals.
I should regret it if a father, who might be playing golf with his son aged 17½, could not offer his son a glass of shandy or a lager at the end of the game. The same applies to parents who may be playing tennis with a son or daughter aged 16½ or 17, and who may find that they cannot let their children have a glass of lager.
During the Committee stage I referred to an occasion when I took my 16-yearold son out to dinner. I allowed him to drink a glass of lager with his meal. Some hon. Members might think that a terrible crime, but I do not think it was. I do not think it gave the boy a taste for alcohol, but rather that it helped to teach him to drink in a civilised way. I know very well that if I told him that he must not smoke, he would go off quietly behind the scenes and do so. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), prohibition is one sure way to making people decide that they will do heir utmost to act contrary to the restrictions imposed on them.
This would usurp the rights to parents. If I allow my son to drink a glass of lager, or if, when on the Continent, a glass of vin rosé, I think that I have the right to decide whether I am doing something which is right or terribly wrong. It ought not to be decided by this House or by anybody else. If we propose to consider these sort of details we shall get to the stage where people's lives will be ruled by Parliament to an unnecessary extent. Already there are safeguards under Clause 21 to deal with clubs about which there could be objection because they were conducted in a disorderly manner.
That would apply to places about which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) was thinking when she referred to young girls having too much to drink and behaving badly as a result. There is also the opportunity, if any such premises are used for frequent drunkenness, to make objection.

It seems to me that there are reasonable safeguards to prevent abuse.
We would be making a very grave error to regard this sort of Amendment as something which should be passed by the House. I regard a club as a very private place where I am responsible for my own behaviour. If I take my own youngsters there I am responsible for their behaviour as well. I hope that by setting them a good example I shall teach them how to behave when I am not there with them. I hope that the House will feel that this is an Amendment which should be resisted.

Mr. G. H. Oliver: The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) seemed to suggest by what he said that there is something about drinking in a club when under the age of 18 which is vastly different from drinking in a public house when under 18. It is not a question of how the place is conducted. We know that these places are conducted very well. During the long discussions we had in Committee about many working-men's clubs and such places, there was no allegation that they were conducted other than in the most appropriate and proper manner, but we took the trouble to fix the age at 18 for allowing anyone to drink in a public house. We did that for a specific purpose. The Committee must have thought that 18 was quite young enough for people to become familiar with alcoholic beverages.
We may have been right or wrong, but, having come to that conclusion in respect of a youth in a "pub", can we have a different mode of reasoning when we speak of a youth in a club?

Mr. Goodhew: I think that we can, for this very good reason. If a youth goes into a public house he is not there with a responsible parent; he is not a member of a club and he can behave as he wishes. It is an entirely different matter when he goes into a club with a parent, or with a person who, invariably, is older and wiser than he. Surely that is another matter.

Mr. Oliver: What the responsibility has to do with the inculcating of drinking habits at 18 I do not know. Either it is good or it is not good. I am not altogether opposed to it, but, as the Committee fixed the age at 18 for young


people drinking in public houses, I think that we must come to the same conclusion in the case of clubs. If it is so pernicious for young people to drink in public houses under that age, we must come to the same conclusion about drinking anywhere, in clubs or otherwise.

Mr. Goodhew: rose—

Mr. Oliver: I know what the hon. Member would say.

Mr. A. Bourne-Arton: Mr. A. Bourne-Arton (Darlington) rose—

Mr. Oliver: I also know what the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Bourne Arton) would say.
They would say that in a club a distinction can be drawn. In a club, one is in private premises. It is a kind of transferring oneself from one's home. We would not permit anyone to come in and challenge us in our homes. But is a club a home? Is there a substitution for a home in any kind of club, however palatial it may be? There are all the restrictions in a club which one does not have in one's home.
Parents are not very much concerned about their children drinking when under the age of 18 in their homes, but we must not forget that youngsters who go into clubs may not have parents so devoted as the hon. Member for St. Albans.

Mr. Mellish: Devoted to lager.

Mr. Oliver: The point I want to emphasise is that we cannot do this without feeling that we are hypocrites in talking about restricting drinking to over the age of 18 in a public house and ignoring the age in any other place where drink can be obtained.
I think that hon. Members know my views about alcoholic drink. I do not take the temperance point of view, but I see the reasonableness of this proposal. No one is challenging the position of clubs. I should oppose anyone saying that young people should not be members of clubs. If there is a tennis club, a golf club, or any club where young people in particular foregather, must that club be granted a licence? There can be some with all the "clubbiness" which a club can provide without it being absolutely necessary, when youths of 16 or 17 are members, for the club to be entitled

to make an application for, or to receive, a licence to sell intoxicating liquor.
When the Minister of State replies, I want him to apply himself to this one point: why should we be prepared to put the age for drinking in a public house at 18 and why should it not be equally applicable to any other place where drink can be obtained? That is the point I am concerned about, because I feel we may be a little inconsistent and hypocritical.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: This debate has evolved along one point; is a "pub" the same as a club? I wish to develop one or two principal reasons which, I hope, will show that they are quite different not only in spirit and in constitution, but in management, in supervision and in the purposes for which they both operate. But the matter does not rest there. There is one good reason why, in any event, this Amendment would be unsuitable. It is wholly unenforceable unless we give the police and others the right of entry to enforce it.
In Committee and again on Report it has been re-emphasised that a club is a private place We were all lobbyed very hard—that was unnecessary in my case, because I happen to hold these views anyway—that it was quite wrong for the police to have the right of supervision and entry into clubs. Nothing brings the law into greater contempt than unenforceable laws, laws which most people, or, at any rate, the majority, think ought not to have been brought in anyway. This would bring the law into greater contempt for a large proportion of people feel that youths under 18 should be entitled to have a drink if they are with someone who can supervise them.
I am sure that I can say without fear of contradiction that the police do not want this power, and would be horrified if they were given it. They would find it extremely difficult to know what to do. I cannot think that it would be likely to receive the warm support of any of those who are concerned with the major sporting clubs of this country.
4.30 p.m.
Concerning enforceability, we have to bear in mind the existence of all the rugby clubs, all the cricket, tennis, squash and


swimming clubs and, even more so, those which are a hotch-potch of all of them. At Ranelagh, for example, there is polo, tennis, squash, swimming, dancing and everything going on with the family there as a whole, from children aged 5, at one end, to old gentlemen in their 70s, having their last games of tennis, at the other end. The place is, of course, licensed. The unfortunate stewards and servants, who not only serve in the bars, but have to go around the premises generally, would have to determine which of the young ladies were under 18, a task which, in the modern age, is quite impossible, such are the statistics of today.
When I was 17½, and taking my beer, which I used to have every morning when I went on to bowl for my school—I had a special exemption—anybody who looked at me then thought that I was 22 years of age. Therefore, such a proposal would be unenforceable not only from the police point of view, but from the viewpoint of all those concerned with the management of the club.

Mr. Mellish: If the hon. Member contends that it could not be enforced, how does he think that subsection (2) could be enforced? It states plainly that alcohol shall not be supplied
except to a member in person".
If the age restriction is unenforceable, how can the decision about whether a person is a member be enforced?

Mr. Rees-Davies: Those at the club usually know who is a member. If they do not know the member, the difficulty is that the supply is to a member but that the person who drinks it is a guest who is under the age of 18.

Mr. Mellish: How is it to be enforced?

Mr. Rees-Davies: If a supply is given to non-members the matter is easily enforceable, because it is possible to determine who is the non-member, which is done by observation. In the case of those under the age of 18, however, observation is always a difficult matter.
The nub of the argument is the question of the difference between a "pub" and a club. There is a complete and absolute difference. They are diametrically opposite. First, a "pub" is a place which is bound to supply the public with alcohol. Secondly, it exists for one purpose

alone, which is to supply alcohol—it is true in suitable surroundings, but it is there for the supply of alcohol. Thirdly, therefore, a person attending being under 18 would be able to attend in his own right.
When Parliament wrote the age of 18 into the Bill it did not write it in because 18 was regarded as the age under which a person should not take drink. It wrote in the age of 18 as being a reasonable age at which we should arrive at the determination on the supply of drink to young persons in public. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the same thing."] No, it is not. That is the heart of the argument.
I take the view, which I strongly hold, that alcohol is something which should not suddenly be supplied to a young person in bulk for the first time. That is to say, I believe that one should be gradually brought up to its consumption. Just as one is brought up to an appreciation of the fine arts, one should be brought up to an appreciation of good food, and so one should be brought up to an appreciation of good drink. That is the essence of it.
I do not want to see all the young men suddenly, at the age of their 18th birthday, going for a "booze-up" in the local public house because they are now 18 and allowed to drink beer. I want to see them starting to drink beer in their own homes, or in their school, if they are fortunate enough to be able to get it in a public school at 18 or 16. I believe that a young man should start having a little beer when he is about 16 or 17. Then, when he is 18, he has been educated gradually to alcohol, which will have no effect and, therefore, he will continue to lead a normal, sober life.
So is it true with wine. Wine is a slowly and gradually acquired taste. I have always been sufficiently vain to think that I have some knowledge of this most desirable beverage. I would not he able to enjoy it pleasantly, and, I hope, satisfactorily, as part of the generally good life that I lead, unless my father had been fortunate enough to start me on wine at 15 or 16 at home—and, of course, in a club. When I went with him to his club, a well-known one in St. James's, I always had a glass of wine at 16 or 17. That club was a


private place. The second main difference is that when one goes to a club, there is always somebody supervising. It is a place for the community life. When those under 18 go, they are subject to supervision.
There is yet another difference. Clubs are not set up normally for the purpose of serving alcohol. They are set up for the purposes for which they are set up, if I may be somewhat diffuse on the subject. Therefore, if it is a cricket club, I cannot imagine anything more difficult and unenforceable than this proposal at the local village match, where there will be several boys of 16 or 17 and most of them will be over that age. If it is to be said that they cannot have one of the drinks of their elders, there would be a terrible row. I should have been extremely angry if I had been excluded from my beer when I was 17. I am sure that hon. Members who think of this matter will recognise that there are real difficulties in it.
There is a fourth major difference. Clubs almost throughout, and even the "spiv" ones, do not want to encourage, and do not encourage, those under 18. That is to say, the clubs for members who are under 18 years of age are almost entirely sporting clubs, the tennis clubs and swimming clubs and organisations of that kind, where one finds members who are under the age of 18. For other purposes, however, they are not members of a club. Therefore, it seems to me quite wrong that we should try to shut them out from becoming members of a club.
The undesirable clubs, on which we have closed the loopholes in other parts of the Bill, do not want youngsters under the age of 18. They are a nuisance to them. They do not have the money that the proprietary clubs particularly want to get in substance and there is little or no evidence that the undesirable clubs seek those under 18. Normally, there is a provision against membership or admission against those under 18, in any event.
I hope I have shown that, in addition to the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Good-hew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), there is a very large number of reasons for showing not only as to their

constitution but for various other reasons, that a club and a "pub" are diametrically opposed.
When it is said that a club and a "pub" are the same, a much closer analogy can be drawn between the club and the private home than between a club and a "pub". It is largely for that reason that the analogy cannot be drawn. Even if it could be drawn, I hope that I will carry a great number of hon. Members with me in saying that the gradual education to alcohol will prevent alcoholism, but that suddenly to throw alcohol open at 18 years of age to all youth and sundry after prohibiting it in earlier life may well lead to the very alcoholism that it is desired to prevent.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: It is always a joy to hear from the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) a panegyric on the advantages of alcohol. I take it that he wishes the House to regard him as a shining example of taking to alcohol at the earliest possible age. That, however, is not the general view of the House and that is not the object of the Bill.
It is true that the Bill is in a large measure a liberalising enactment, but throughout our discussions in Committee Home Office spokesmen and hon. Members from this side were careful to emphasise that one of its salient objects is the protection of the young, to try to protect young persons from unnecessary indulgence or unnecessary opportunities of indulging in alcohol.
Unlike the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), I regard the Amendment as both necessary and desirable. It is necessary because, without it, the provisions of the Bill would be anomalous. It is necessary because, unles it is made, there will be no protection against young persons under the age of 18 drinking alcohol in clubs. It is desirable for reasons which I will attempt to state
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet based much of his argument on the fact that one cannot equate clubs with "pubs". I accept that. Equally, one cannot equate clubs with a private house. What may be done in an isolated case in the home, when children under


the age of 18 are under parental control, is properly a matter for parental responsibility. But, on the question whether opportunities should be provided for children under the age of 18 to drink alcohol, clubs are more analogous to "pubs" than to private houses, because large numbers of people congregate in clubs, as they do in "pubs", but this does not happen in private houses. Temptations to youth to drink are much greater when there are large numbers of people gathered together than they obviously are in the domestic privacy of one's personal home.
Clubs vary in degree. When legislating for clubs we must have regard not only to political clubs, working-men's clubs and sporting clubs, but to all clubs. Just as we are laying down a general maxim that alcohol should not be served to persons under the age of 18 in public houses, and just as we are rightly making special provisions for a lower age limit in restaurants where young people are served with meals and accompanied by parents, so, in dealing with clubs, we must remember that there is the opportunity in pubs, just as there is in "pubs", to drink without meals.
This is true whether they are workingmen's clubs, which are frequented by apprentices under the age of 18, or whether they are tennis or golf clubs. The majority of people frequenting many tennis clubs are under 'the age of 18, or about that age.
Therefore, for the reasons so admirably stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), in the interests of generally discouraging young people from partaking of alcohol it would be a good thing to lay it down in the Bill as a maxim, as we do in the case of "pubs", that young people under the age of 18 should not be provided with alcoholic liquor in clubs.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman answer this straight question? Does he take the view that under the age of 18 there should be no drinking of alcohol at all, but that young persons over the age of 18 can go full steam ahead? Does he discount altogether my argument that there should be a gradual upbringing to alcohol, with some being taken at 17, perhaps in clubs, and then young persons coming on to it at 18?.

Mr. Fletcher: That argument is completely unrealistic. It obviously cannot be laid down in an Act of Parliament that people can have half a pint of beer while they are 17 and a pint of beer when they are over 18. These maxims are no doubt very useful for general moral guidance to adolescents on how best to grow up enjoying or avoiding alcohol, but we cannot legislate in that detail.
We should say that, in general, the law does not expect people having licences to sell alcohol in public houses or people running registered clubs, and, therefore, being able without licences to supply liquor to their members, to supply liquor to people under the age of 18. That should be the general principle, recognised by the House and laid down in the Bill.
If it is accepted, the only remaining point is the question of enforceability. I do not agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet that in this context it is completely wrong to say what the House thinks ought to be said merely because there may be instances in which the law will be evaded. I concede that there may be instances, but if it is recognised as a general principle that 18 is the appropriate age—after all, some age must be fixed—the tendency in all honest, regular and well-conducted clubs will be to observe that rule.
There are provisions to deal with clubs formed merely for the purpose of irregularity. It will strengthen the hands of social workers and others interested in running clubs and enforcing the law if it is prescribed and they have the sanction of an Act of Parliament to refuse to sell alcohol to people under the age of 18. For all these reasons, I hope that the Minister of State will accept the Amendment.

4.5 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Dennis Vosper): The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said that one of the aims of the Bill is to protect the young. The Government are certainly concerned about the effects of alcohol on young people, but it is important to keep this problem in perspective.
As I said when replying for the Government on Second Reading, 1·5 per cent of the convictions for drunkenness


last year related to persons under the age of 18. I mention this fact because the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) seems to associate drinking in young people with crime. The proportion of crime committed by people under 18 is over 30 per cent. In that sense, the amount of drunkenness amongst young persons under the age of 18 is not large.
Nevertheless, the Bill recognises the importance of this problem in several ways. In Clause 2 (4), provision is made against the grant of restaurant and residential licences to premises where the majority of customers are young people. The penalties for supplying drink to persons under the age of 18 in public houses have been increased. For the first time it has been made an offence for young persons under the age of 18 to consume alcohol in a public house. In an earlier debate on Report I agreed that, although the evidence I gave the House was against it, we should do something about the supply of alcohol at off-licence premises to people under this age.
Therefore, I can quite see the argument that we should go even a step further and accept the Amendment. Indeed, I said on Second Reading that throughout the Bill the Government would keep this issue in mind and would consider everything that has been said. In Committee, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) moved an Amendment in somewhat wider terms, but the ensuing debate was not very different from that which has taken place today. His Amendment was fairly heavily defeated.
The arguments advanced then and today are these. Clubs are a potential source of drunkenness amongst young people. Therefore, we should avoid this risk and, despite the inconvenience caused, should prohibit the supply of drinks to persons under the age of 18. I think that the whole issue turns on what one understands by the term "a club" and whether one regards a club as more akin to a public house or more akin to a private place. It is upon that argument that this issue must be decided.
Part III of the Bill seeks to curtail the activities of those clubs which, I think, are very much in the minds of hon. Members who support the Amendment,

namely, drinking clubs. The whole object of Part III is to curtail or limit the activities of that type of club. The attitude of licensing legislation towards clubs has throughout the century been very different from the approach adopted towards the public house. The club has been regarded, and is so regarded under the Bill, as a place where people with common interests associate together, and do so in private. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) was so right to emphasise the word "privacy" here.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Islington, East when he says that the genuine club is something more akin to a "pub" than to a private home. That is certainly not been the concept of the registered club under the several licensing Measures of this century, and that is why the club has the privilege of registration—a privilege which is retained under the Therefore, if we accepted this Amendment, we should be thinking not in terms of the drinking clubs in parts of London, which are rightly so much in the minds of hon. Members—and we hope to put an end to them—but in terms of the golf club, the tennis club, the British Legion club, the working-men's clubs, the apprentices' clubs, and other clubs of that kind. I ask the House to have those clubs in mind when deciding whether those under 18 years of age should be prohibited in this way.
The issue on which the House must come to a conclusion is: is it right to differentiate between the home and the club? If so, should not those hon. Members who support the Amendment seek to go still further and prohibit the consumption of alcohol by all persons under 18? With due respect to the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), who shakes her head, I think that that is the logical conclusion of what she seeks here to do. To do anything short of that—

Mrs. Slater: But is not the difference rather wider than that? As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has pointed out, there is no connection between the home and the club; the home is purely a private place, but the club is more than a private place. Surely the issue is not whether the club is not like a "pub", but


whether, in any public place of any kind, it is right or wrong that any young person under 18 should be able to buy alcohol.

Mr. Vosper: The hon. Lady referred to a "public place", but a club is a private place—and that is the point I am seeking to make. If one analyses the sources of drink amongst young people, one finds that the bottle party organised privately may be a much greater source of trouble than the club. I can understand the hon. Lady's view. I think that it might be in her mind—and I would not blame her—to stop any possible cause of drunkenness among young people, in which case she should seek to prohibit consumption completely, but to draw the line at the club, which is a private place is, I think, drawing it at the wrong place.
It must be a matter of opinion and dispute whether, in fact, the 17-year-old girl whom the hon. Lady has quoted should be allowed a glass of sherry in the tennis club, or whether my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans should take his son to his club and give him a glass of shandy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lager".] Yes, I am sorry, lager—at 16 years of age. That must be a matter of opinion, but all the evidence I have received on this, and all the views expressed to me, do not lead me to believe that we should legislate to prevent that sort of thing happening, which would be the effect of accepting this Amendment.
If, in fact, the hon. Lady is right, and the arguments that I have advanced in principle against it are wrong, the Amendment is still not very acceptable. No penalties are attached to it, the offence of consumption is not mentioned and, of course, it is even now permissible for young persons over 16 to consume cider or perry with a meal, so that the Amendment goes even further than the existing law in respect of licensed premises.
I would advise the House that, in principle, this Amendment is not acceptable. In her concluding remarks the hon. Lady, possibly appealing to club interests, said that this Amendment would not entail any further police inspection. If so, how will it be enforced? I know of no way of enforcing this prohibition without a greater degree of police intervention

and inspection than is now provided in the Bill. I do not argue that one must go the whole way with police inspection, but, if her Amendment were to be accepted, some greater provision than now exists in the Bill would be necessary if the Measure were not to become a dead letter.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley thought that there were cases where the law could not be enforced, but the last thing we want to do now is to put on the Statute Book something that is not enforceable. If it is to be enforceable, there must be a greater degree of police inspection than is now provided for—

Mr. Mellish: Then how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to enforce subsection (2)?

Mr. Vosper: Clause 19 relates to sales off the premises for non-members—

Mr. Mellish: No, it states that intoxicating liquor shall be sold on club premises only to those who are members of that club.

Mr. Vosper: The police do not find it very difficult to enforce the provisions relating to sale or supply to non-members. I do not say that they could not enforce this provision, but I certainly argue that one would have to write into the Bill greater powers than it now provides—

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We made a special point of this. The police cannot be there every day, and we admit it that it might just be possible to contravene the law. Nevertheless, the sanction would be there. Tennis clubs, for example, are very public there is nothing closed about a tennis club, and anybody would know that a person under 18 should not be supplied with intoxicating liquor.

Mr. Vosper: I realised that the hon. Gentleman was asking me to enact something that was not capable of complete enforcement. That, I must decline to do, because one of the primary objects of the Bill is to put on the Statute Book an enforceable piece of legislation.
I should like the hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman, and all those who support the Amendment, to know that the Government have not treated this proposal lightly. Both prior to this discussion, and earlier, we have given it full


consideration to make certain that we were right in the principle that we have adopted; and to see whether there was any way of meeting the intention of the Amendment without contravening any of what I believe to be the rights and privileges of the club. Among the various reasons given in Clause 21, for which a club may be struck off, subsection (2, e) states that it may be struck off where there is frequent drunkenness. Obviously, if a club is to be a continual source of drunkenness among young people there are already sufficient grounds in the Bill to refuse registration.
I have examined the Clause to see whether it could be strengthened by some reference to young people, but I have come to the conclusion that any attempts to strengthen it would, in fact, have the opposite effect. As I say, I do not want the House to think that this is something that we have made up our minds in advance not to consider. It has been considered, but I believe that the proposed interference with the rights of club members is understood by the House and the country. The Bill seeks to curtail the activities of the drinking club, which the sponsors of the Amendment have in mind, but even if, in principle, one thought the Amendment right, I have to say again that it remains unenforceable without a greater degree of police entry and police inspection.
I believe that the Bill already has great safeguards in respect of young people and clubs, and that we should enact it as it stands and see how it works before embarking on the idea contained in this Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) was the first Conservative Member to oppose this Amendment, and he gave as his reason the fact that he himself was a frequenter of Conservative clubs. I think that his experience of those clubs must have come rather late in life because I gather that the hon. Member was a Liberal for many years—

Mr. E. Johnson: But not necessarily an abstainer.

Mr. Mellish: Then he was obviously a very odd Liberal.
The hon. Member thought that because most good clubs already observe

this sort of rule—the Conservative clubs, the Labour clubs, the working-men's clubs, and so on—it was unnecessary to write in something that the vast majority of good clubs were already doing. I do not deny that that is right. I think that most good clubs make a rule that nobody under the age of 18 shall be admitted as a member.
5.0 p.m.
I think that most clubs, even the sort of clubs that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) frequented in his youth, would have some objection to selling double gins to little girls of eight years old. There are certain limits in this matter. The question is how to define those limits. I do not think that the Minister has really made out the case that one can equate the home with the club in the way that he thinks one can. It is not at all like that.
I might say that there are some homes in Britain where a pale substance called methylated spirit is drunk. One would not say that clubs should sell such a commodity. I know that there are such homes in Britain, if they can be called homes. But we are talking about decent homes and decent clubs.
We are seeking to legislate against the sort of clubs that abuse the position. The laws are not made for the purpose of protecting people against the good clubs or licensed premises. We know that the vast majority of the people who operate licensed premises are first-class people doing a good job. The same applies to the people running the majority of clubs. But we have to lay down some standards in order to make certain that the other type of club does not abuse the position. That is the intention behind the Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) knows my views generally about having a drink. I think that it is a very fine pastime provided that it is not done too often and that one does not drink too much. At any rate, I enjoy it while I am doing it. I do not understand the attitude of the Minister in the matter. In the earlier stages he was most expressive about it. He wanted to see a liberalising of our licensing laws, but, at the same time, he was keen to ensure that there would be no abuse as far as young people were concerned.
Talking in the House today is rather like it was when talking in Committee upstairs, except that we now have a better looking Chairman. The conditions are almost exactly the same. The Home Secretary is missing, as he was upstairs. I do not know where he is, but he is not present today when we are debating this important matter. We have the same kind of glamour as before on the Government Front Bench. In fact, today's debate is almost an exact repeat of where we came in on the debate in Committee upstairs.
It has already been established that 18 is the right age to fix in any Statute dealing with drinking. I shall support the Amendment because I think it right to do so. I do not think that the attempt to equate the home with the club is a fair one. I believe that the vast majority of working-men's clubs—at any rate, those in my constituency, where we have two of them—favour this type of legislation and do not sell intoxicating liquor to anyone under the age of 18.

Mr. E. Johnson: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that clubs of that sort could seek to bring in a byelaw to stop the serving of intoxicating drinks to people under the age of 18 and that such a byelaw could be enforced by the committees of the clubs?

Mr. Mellish: I am saying that the legislation which we introduce is not designed for the purpose of dealing with the decent clubs. It never was. The decent clubs will carry on as before. Such legislation is introduced to deal with the tiny minority of clubs which serve drinks to anyone and everyone, including the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet.

Mr. William Blyton: I was astounded to hear the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) say that at the age of 16½ he liked his beer and could get it.

Mrs. Slater: At school.

Mr. Blyton: My mother was horrified when she knew that I was drinking at the age of 24. I had a very rough time for a long time until she became reconciled to the fact that I intended to continue to drink.
The question of flexibility has been argued in connection with the Amendment.

This has been a rule in the working-men's clubs in the North for the forty years that I have been a member of the working-men's club movement. No club in the North will serve a drink to anyone under 18 years of age or accept anyone for membership of the club under that age. It is true that they extend to those under the 18 years of age their educational facilities and, may be, use of their libraries, but the provision of intoxicants in the clubs to people under 18 years of age has been barred all the time that I have been a member of the movement.
I am entirely against Part III of the Bill. I think that it is wrong to interfere with the working-men's clubs in order to deal with the vice clubs in London. That matter should be dealt with by separate legislation. However, that is by the way. I do not think that the working-men's club movement would have any objection at all to the Amendment, because the management committees of the clubs are composed of responsible people. They run the clubs and look after the welfare of their members. They give instructions to their stewards as to the way in which the clubs should be conducted. They are there to see that the clubs are properly conducted, and, as I have said, in all the years that I have been connected with the movement this rule has been rigidly enforced in working-men's clubs both in Durham and Northumberland.
I see no reason at all why the Minister should not incorporate this Amendment in the Bill. If it is incorporated, it will then give legal standing to something which has been the practice for many years. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter, because I do not want to see young lads and young girls of under 18 years of age drinking intoxicating liquor, whether it be in a cricket club, a sports club or a badminton club. I believe that 18 years of age is an early enough age at which to give them legal sanction to drink intoxicating liquor.
I am by no means an angel myself. I have been drinking for a long time, but the fact remains that, according to the figure of 1·5 per cent. which the Minister gave, drinking among young people is still too high. I do not want to see children under 18 years of age—because they are only children—taking


intoxicating liquor and, maybe, emulating those youngsters who went to Calais this week and took the place by storm due to drinking the wines about which we have heard so much today.
I appeal to the Minister not to interfere with the working-men's clubs. They are private places. We ought to say to the committees of those clubs, "You have carried on by yourselves for eighteen years." We should then strengthen the Bill in this respect and lay upon the clubs the statutory obligation not to serve any person under the age of 18 with intoxicating liquor.

Mr. Ede: I think that the whole case against the Amendment was given away by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) when he asked my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) the question he did. The insertion of the Amendment in the Bill would reinforce the influence of the committee of the club. If the Amendment were inserted in the Bill the committee of a club, if it objected to young people under 18 years of age littering up the place and going there to drink, could point to the Statute and say that this was the general opinion of the country.
With regard to the public school mentioned by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), I, as the governor of two public schools, think that I should have to recommend the redrafting of the prospectus of the school or alter the biography of the hon. Member. I think that there ought to be at least one paragraph stating, "Send your boy to this school and he will be steadily introduced to the habit of drinking intoxicating liquor."

Mr. Rees-Davies: Apart from this question of beer and skittles for boys aged 16, when the right hon. Gentleman was Home Secretary did he not receive the advice that it would be unenforceable to have a provision of this kind, and has not that been the general view of the police during the past ten or fifteen years?

Mr. Ede: I understand that the Daily Telegraph objects to my referring to what advice I received from the Civil Service when I was Home Secretary. In this connection, while I make no

apology for what I said the other day, I should proceed on the lines of what I personally believe. I have never heard the police say that they could not enforce anything if it was enacted into law. It becomes their duty and they would not say that it is unenforceable. But, of course, the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet speaks for so many sections of the underworld—[Interruption.]—and when he undertook to speak for the police I was relieved to find that he also mixes in respectable company.
I urge hon. Members to realise that the committees of clubs are responsible for the general atmosphere that prevails in their clubs. It is their principal duty to do that, and to insert this Amendment in the Bill would reinforce their capacity to deal with what the majority of members of clubs object to—and I speak as one who has been a member of a working-man's club for sixty years—and the taking of alcohol by young people under 18 is one of their objections. They try to prevent that, and this Amendment would reinforce their power to maintain the kind of standards they wish to see in their clubs.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I was rather taken with the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). He raised an extremely valid point when he said that the good clubs, the well-run ones, try to conform to very high standards. Hon. Members will be aware that many of these clubs have rules to make certain that, if young people are admitted, they are properly conducted and there is no possible way of them obtaining intoxicating liquor.
I can appreciate the enforcement problem raised by the Minister, but I urge him to remember that there are, after all, many other points affecting clubs which are also difficult to enforce. In this connection, before the police can prove an offence, they must convince a magistrate that it was right and proper for them to have been allowed to enter the club premises. This is one of the things the police must do in order that cases of breach of the law by clubs can be brought to the courts.
The line that has been taken in this Bill—of protecting young people up to the age of 18 from obtaining intoxicants—forces me to the point of agreeing with the Minister that we should try to aim


at seeing that no person under 18 in any circumstances, whether at home or elsewhere, can obtain intoxicating liquor. I suppose that is an extremely difficult thing to do. Nevertheless, this is a Licensing Bill and surely we should be able to make clubs realise—not so much the genuine ones but those clubs this Bill is trying to get at; those that are not so good that it is wrong to allow youngsters under 18 to obtain intoxicating liquor.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I join in the appeal to the Minister of State that he should reconsider this matter. We had an interesting time when the Bill was in Standing Committee with the different views that were put forward, but, eventually, all hon. Members of the Committee became deeply concerned about the increase in drunkenness among young people. In the various provisions of the Bill we examined whether we could do something to deal with what we all regard as this very serious problem.
We have already made provision regarding public houses, and the Minister of State has agreed to consider what should be done about off-licences. He has, in this connection, promised that something will be done about this between now and the time the Bill reaches the other place. The House has been impressed by the statements of hon. Members who have long experience of clubs and who have indicated the worthy practices of the best clubs. But we should try to bring the worst of them up to the standards of the best. In doing that, we shall inflict no damage or hardship on clubs generally, for what we desire is already being done by the best clubs.
I hope, therefore, that since the Minister of State has agreed to consider this matter carefully, since he has made provision in the Bill regarding public houses and since he has agreed to do something about off-licences, he will now reconsider this matter between now and the time the Bill reaches another place, for we should leave no steps untaken that could possibly be taken to deal with the problem of the growth of drinking among young people.

Sir Douglas Glover: I did not intend to join in this debate, but I

very much sympathise with the views expressed by hon. Members.
I agree that in the case of 95 per cent. of the clubs this Amendment will make little or no difference. It must be remembered, however, that once there has been a debate in this House on a Bill such as this—a Licensing Bill—the situation in these clubs will never be what it was before the Bill came before the House. The reason is that we have discussed the old tradition of the well-established clubs and it has been pointed out that they do not intend that young people under 18 should take intoxicating liquor. Is it not obvious that that view will be somewhat whittled down by the very fact that we have had this debate? Will not the committees of these clubs be faced with the argument that hon. Members of the House of Commons have debated this question of young persons under the age of 18 not being supplied with intoxicating liquor, but that words to that effect have not been incorporated in the Bill?
Without wishing to use this in a party way, may I take as an example Conservative clubs, about which I know a good deal more than the other types of clubs? The position might arise where one Conservative club is persuaded to abrogate its long-standing rule of not allowing drinking by persons under 16. Immediately that Conservative club has allowed that concession, pressure might be brought on the other clubs to fall in line and also to make a reduction in the minimum age at which they will allow drinking. Thus, over a period of five to ten years, the minimum age limit at which people may drink—not necessarily to excess—may be very much reduced from what it originally was.
Although the club system has worked well in the past and although the great majority of clubs have never had any real difficulty with this problem, the mere fact that Parliament has had this debate on a Licensing Bill alters the whole situation and, while I will not say that I am sufficiently strong in my views to vote on this issue, I hope that the Minister will consider this point, because I believe that it is one of some substance

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: Like the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), I also plead with the Minister of State to give this matter


his serious consideration, After all, there must have been some social purpose or some moral reason why, in the general provisions of licensing, we have the condition laid on the licensee of an inn that he shall not serve a person under the age of 18. There must have been some moral cause for the existence of that provision. The licensee is prohibited by law from serving a person under 18.
It is only right, therefore, that hon. Members should consider just what is the alternative for a lad under 18 who wants to have a drink. He can become a member of a club. About 95 per cent. of working-men's clubs prohibit the sale of alcoholic drinks to any person under the age of 18. But let us assume that 5 per cent. of those clubs permit it. Is it fair to the other 95 per cent. who enforce this prohibition to allow this minority to have that latitude and advantage?
There is another very important point. The Minister has consistently referred to the intentions of this Bill with respect to the registration of clubs. He has been very apologetic all along because, in order to get at the bogus clubs, he has had to include the well-conducted clubs within the provisions of this Bill, and on more than one occasion he has expressed deep regret at having had to do this. But unless he accepts this Amendment he will be increasing the dangers of the bogus clubs, because young people who become members of such clubs can be supplied with drinks. Therefore, the rejection of this Amendment will not only undermine the existing licensing laws applicable to public houses but also will enable a lad who has been refused a drink in a public house to become a member of a bogus club.
There are not many bogus clubs in the provinces. They are usually found in the large cities. That is where the evil lies. In large cities people lead such impersonal lives. There are 10 million people in London most of whom are strangers to each other, and boys can become members of bogus clubs unknown to their parents. If the Minister has been serious about the point that he has made that the Government want to have strict supervision and control of bogus clubs, their freedom

can be limited by the acceptance of this Amendment prohibiting the sale of alcoholic drink to persons under 18 wherever they are. Therefore, I think that matter should weigh very heavily with the Minister if he wants to abolish this new social menace and evil which is arising in bogus clubs.
Unless this Amendment is accepted, we shall drive these people to those undesirable places, the paradise of the underworld, about which we have heard so much today.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: All the arguments that I have heard against the Amendment have reinforced me in the conviction that I did the right thing in adding my name to those of other hon. Members who support it.
I am willing to believe that the Minister of State has come to this decision of his own volition. I say that for this reason. I cannot imagine that there is any reputable organisation or volume of opinion in this country which has brought any pressure to bear upon the right hon. Gentleman to resist this Amendment. I am sure that no organisation in the licensed trade or any reputable organisation of clubs has put forward any demand to the Government to resist the inclusion of this Amendment in the Bill. Therefore, I say that the right hon. Gentleman has come to this decision on purely doctrinaire considerations.
In this connection I want to reinforce a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas). I want to utter this solemn warning to the right hon. Gentleman, knowing what I do of conditions in London. The immediate effect of turning down this Amendment and of allowing this Bill to go on to the Statute Book in its present form would be—and there is big money to be made out of it—that some shady promoters would start drinking clubs in London where the maximum age for admission to the club would be 18. It would be quite legal. Think of the financial possibilities if such a club were established.
As hon. Members opposite have pointed out, the discussion of this Amendment has thrown a searchlight on to a very dangerous and serious possibility which would arise if the Bill were allowed to go through in its present form. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think


twice. I know that the law is difficult to enforce on scallywags who are determined to evade it. There is the law which prohibits the sale of cigarettes to children, and yet children buy cigarettes pretending that they have been sent to buy them for their parents, and on leaving the shop they smoke the cigarettes themselves. We know that these things happen, but that is no argument for saying that because the law is infringed in some cases it ought not to be on the Statute Book.
If the Minister does not accept the Amendment, there are dangerous possibilities in a metropolis like London. I beg him to think again and to accept as valid the arguments that have been adduced in support of the Amendment. There is not a reputable club in this country which has made any request to be allowed to sell drink to persons under the age of 18. Even the tennis clubs and other clubs, to which the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) referred, would not dream of submitting a request to the Home Secretary to be allowed to sell drink to people under 18. The demand just does not exist in any legitimate form. That is why it is of the utmost importance that we should take advantage of this, the last opportunity, of remedying what will be discovered very soon to be a very dangerous situation in the existing law.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: In common with many other Members, I urge the Minister to reconsider his attitude. I do not want to repeat all the arguments which have been advanced in favour of the Amendment, with which I gladly associate myself.
Very few arguments have been advanced in opposition to the Amendment, and I propose to deal with one or two of them. But before doing so I should like to say that I think it is generally conceded in all quarters of the House that a very large number—in fact, the majority—of reputable and well-run clubs in the country already prohibit the supply of intoxicating liquor to those under the age of 18. I have not heard any hon. Member yet suggest that that is a rule to be deprecated. It is a rule which has the general approval of all hon. Members. It is certainly a rule which clubs can make within their discretion, and I do not think that anyone would suggest that it is a discretion badly exercised. In

the circumstances, why should not what is already recognised as a useful social provision be incorporated in this licensing legislation?
The only argument put with any real force against it is based on the difficulty of enforcement. Several provisions of the Bill will not be very easy to enforce, and the provision suggested in the Amendment is in no different category from many others relating to clubs.
The Minister suggested that there was no penalty provided in relation to the Amendment. I submit that the penalty is clearly laid down by Clause 19 (2) and that would apply equally to the Amendment if it were accepted. I do not think that that point need trouble us very much. I want the Minister to accept the principle behind the Amendment. If he does he will help those engaged in social work among young people and those who wish that the rule generally accepted in many clubs already should be placed on the Statute Book and made obligatory on all.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: I apologise for not having heard a great deal of the debate. I was prevented from being present this is really what brings me to my feet—because for most of the day I have been engaged on magisterial duties. One of the concerns of the bench of which I am a member is the thuggery particularly among young people which goes on in the town. There is no doubt that in almost every case where young people just under 18 or round about that age have found themselves in the nasty position of having assaulted other people, the offences have occurred after they have had access to drink. Time and time again, in the magistrates' courts, when young people are accused of vicious actions, it is shown that they have been led to those actions because of irresponsibility as a result of drink. I assure the House that this is something which greatly concerns magistrates throughout the country. It is found everywhere. I am convinced that the cause of a great deal of crime among young people can he traced to drinking.
It was my privilege to introduce and, ultimately, to see put on the Statute Book a small Bill in these terms relating not to clubs but to occasional licences. At that time, some of us felt that what applied


to public houses should apply to any place where drink is sold. We were concerned to close the gaps. In the light of my experience, I thought that occasional licences were providing opportunities for young people under 18 to obtain alcoholic drink which they could not obtain in public houses. Almost without debate, the House gave me that Bill which became an Act of Parliament. No objections were raised to it. From both sides of the House the view was expressed that it was a very desirable Measure. Now, we have this one gap left. It should be closed.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and for representatives of the Home Office to talk about clubs as being the home of the people. It is a bad home which allows children under 18 to have access to drink. I submit that in most cases what I have said is true, and in a club there is not even the control which there is in the home. The care is not taken.
Most of the clubs in this country render some sort of social service to the community, but it is very dangerous to sell intoxicating liquor to children under 18. I am quite sure that, if the public houses are closed to young people for the sale of liquor, and if the occasional licences are closed to them too, the opportunity should be taken to prevent clubs leading young people into very much worse crime as a result of indulgence in intoxicating liquor.
What has been said in the House today from both sides has shown that this is a very valuable Amendment. Even at this stage, I beg the Home Office to accept it. The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) explained the point about penalties. There is no difficulty there. I am sure that the promoters of the Amendment would be very happy to accept any words which the Home Office suggested provided that the principle were accepted. I make a final appeal, based largely on the experience to which I referred in my opening sentences, that the Amendment should be accepted.

Sir Cyril Black: I add my appeal to the many which have been made from both sides of the House to my right hon. Friend to think again very

carefully and seriously about the issues involved in the Amendment. It would be a mistake for my right hon. Friend to underestimate the strength and sincerity of the feeling which exists on this matter not only in the House of Commons but in the country. I believe that there is an overwhelming body of public opinion which looks with concern upon the incidence of drinking and drunkenness among young people and which favours any reasonable measure such as this Amendment is, in my view, to deal with what is becoming a growing social evil.
Hon. Members will recall that in the last Parliament I obtained the unopposed leave of the House under the Ten-Minute Rule to introduce a Bill which dealt with the very subject matter of the Amendment. Not only did I obtain unopposed leave to introduce the Bill but, according to my recollection, I obtained an unopposed Second Reading for the Bill and the Bill made considerable progress in Committee, a Committee of the whole House, although, unfortunately, there was not Parliamentary time to enable all stages of the Bill to be completed. As is so often the fate of Bills introduced under the Ten-Minute Rule, my Bill died at the end of the Session. However, Parliament gave unopposed approval to legislation on the lines of the Amendment. On any free expression of opinion in this Parliament, I believe that a majority of hon. Members on both sides would be in favour of the same principle.
This is an Amendment to which all the Churches attach great importance, and I am sure that it would receive overwhelming support from social workers and youth workers in general. Let us not overlook the fact that in the past three or four years the convictions of young people for drunkenness have doubled. If the Bill would not perhaps do an enormous lot to deal with that situation, and if the Amendment would be difficult of enforcement, at any rate, the acceptance of the Amendment by the Government and this House would be a clear indication of the view of this House that there is at the present time an increasing evil, and an evil on which this House ought to take action.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: So many serious and obviously sincere speeches have been made in


support of the Amendment, and especially by hon. Friends of mine with whom I do not like to be in disagreement, that I make the few short remarks which I propose to make with some diffidence.
I am bound to say that I could not support the Amendment. I think that it is misconceived, unnecessary and unenforceable. I should like to begin by saying that, listening to some of the speeches that have been made, one would suppose that this House was being invited to change the law in order to increase the facilities for drinking by young people in clubs or elsewhere. That is not so. [Interruption.] I apologise if I misunderstood any of the speeches, but that is the effect they left on my mind, and it may be that it is the effect left on other minds. If we are now all in agreement that that is not so, to that extent the air will have been cleared.
There Is no proposal before the House to increase the facilities for drinking by young people, either in clubs or anywhere else. If that is clear, and it is therefore clear that the change in the law that is being proposed is a change to withdraw facilities that are now enjoyed, it is not unfair to say that the onus of justifying the withdrawal of those facilities lies upon those making the proposal. I quite understand that hon. Friends of mine would not be in support of it unless they thought that that onus had been discharged. I am on my feet because I do not think it has been.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I made a very short speech, but if my hon. Friend refers to the consideration of the Bill in Committee, he will find that we were all deeply concerned about the figures which the Minister gave of the increase in drinking, and particularly convictions of young people for drunkenness. We therefore considered in this Bill in several respects whether it was our responsibility to try to check that trend by legislation. We therefore provided an age-limit for licensed premises, and the Minister promised to consider an age-limit for off-licences. Therefore, we are not introducing a new principle, but a principle which was accepted in Committee.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I assure my right hon. Friend that I knew all that before, and I quite appreciate that my hon. Friends would not have made the speeches which I have heard—very impressive speeches very many of them—unless they had felt that this was a necessary reform. I am sorry that they have not convinced me, and I am now explaining to the House why, in my opinion, the case has not been made.
The first point made and admitted on all sides is that in the great majority of clubs, the position is entirely satisfactory, so that there is no necessity, regarding the operation of most clubs, for the change. Then it is said that while all that may be very true, there is a variety of ill-managed clubs which are devoted to exploiting the weaknesses of human beings, and especially the weaknesses of the young, and that we need this amendment of the law in order to prevent that. Undoubtedly, there are clubs of that nature. There are bad clubs or ill-regulated clubs, and there are clubs which are merely an excuse for the evasion of the licensing laws, but we shall not be able to control those clubs by this kind of Amendment. I should have thought that that was abundantly clear.
Then, it was said, in the last speech that I heard, that there had been a great increase in the number of convictions for drunkenness among young people over the past few years. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) himself went on to concede that it was not due to mismanagement or to the abuse of these facilities in clubs. He did not put it in so many words, but what he did say in so many words was that, if it were passed, the Amendment would not have very much bearing on that increase in intoxication among young people. I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right, and that we all agree with him.
Finally, I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), whose speech brought me to my feet. I think that it is possible to exaggerate most things, but that to erect this on to the melodramatic level on which my hon. Friend put it is really a reductio ad absurdum of the case for the Amendment. There is not a lot of interest in drinking among young people, and people who


think there is are very much more out of touch with the trend of thinking and social habits of young people in our time than is recognised. When it comes to juvenile delinquency, everybody who knows anything at all about the subject knows that it arises, far more even than in clubs or pubs, in coffee bars and milk bars, where there is no age limit and where there is no time limit. I think that we all know that in a number of the most sensational crimes of violence in recent years, the association, the gangsters' haunt, was the coffee bar or milk bar, and certainly not a well-conducted club.
It seems to me that shall not have any compensating advantage if we pass the Amendment or interfere with the present position. The case has not been made out, except a sentimental one, and I do not use the word in any offensive sense—I mean the sentiment against the consumption of alcohol by young people; a very valuable one, which we all share—but it is carrying it to an unnecessary length in seeking to alter the law for any of the reasons given here. I do not myself see that if the law were amended in this way—and, of course, it would have to be enforced, and I do not agree with those who say that it would be unenforceable altogether—it would be enforceable at a price, and only at the price of giving the police the right of entry into clubs far in excess of the rights which they have now.
Unless a very strong case necessitates it, or overwhelming social desirability, I think that it would be a mistake, and I see no positive, practical advantage in this Amendment, if it were made law, that would justify the further infringement of liberties and the further extension of police rights necessary to enforce it.

Sir Frank Soskice: I hope that the Minister will reconsider the views he has expressed. I should like at the end of this fairly long and very full and valuable debate to try to sum up the views of the House as they seem to me and to try to evaluate them. I think that all hon. Members who have spoken, with the exception of three, have pressed the Minister to accept the spirit of this Amendment.
To take the third and last opponent, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), he starts

from this position. He says, "Exactly how do we discharge the onus of interfering further with the existing liberty on the part of a person under the age of 18 to obtain drinks in registered clubs?" I should seek to discharge the onus in this way. I should say that Parliament and the people of this country for years back have accepted that it is appropriate in the case of licensed premises. That is done in Section 129 of the Licensing Act, 1953. During our debates on this Bill the Minister has accepted in principle that it should apply to off-licence premises.
Several hon. Members who have wide experience of the practice in clubs have stated that in general the committees of clubs accept that persons under the age of 18, if they are allowed to membership at all, ought not to be allowed to buy alcoholic refreshment in the clubs. That is a very broad consensus of opinion, and it has been reflected by the fact that in this House all but three hon. Members out of the many who have made speeches on the subject, and speeches of great sincerity, based on considerable experience, have all accepted the principle of this Amendment.
I should have thought that the general view of the public—and that, after all, is a very important factor in the answer to this problem—is that, on the whole, it is undesirable that persons under the age of 18 should have—if I may have the Minister's attention; it does not look very likely to me that I am going to get it—easy and ready access to the purchase of alcoholic refreshment.
I do not think most of us would object to a young man of 17 having a glass of sherry, particularly if he consumes it under the eagle eye of his papa, but when they are congregated in the club I should have thought that the position was rather different. I accept the point that the club is not in any real sense a public place; it is a private gathering of club members; but, nevertheless, there is not the same degree of parental supervision as there is in a well-conducted home.
Therefore, if I may offer my answer to the question how to discharge the onus, I would say that Parliament has accepted it in the case of licensed premises; it has been accepted by the


Minister as a result of the expressions of view in this House in the case of off-license premises; the great majority of committees of clubs which are, as it were, in the front line of the matter, from their experience in the conduct of the individual clubs with which they are concerned, have accepted that it is reasonable. I would hazard a guess that if we walk along any street in this country and ask, "What is your view?" nine out of ten would say, "It is a bad thing that a person under the age of 18 should readily be able to buy in clubs any amount of alcoholic refreshment." So I would say that there is a strong case for the acceptance in principle of this Amendment and that the onus is absolutely discharged.
What is said on the other side? On the other side it is said that this would be difficult to enforce. The Minister must have in mind that throughout the Bill there is a large number of prohibitions on what is to take place inside clubs. There are restrictions with regard to hours during which alcoholic refreshment may be sold in clubs. There are provisions which enable the police, on a warrant, if it is thought that there is evidence which would justify revocation of the licence, to go in. I really do not understand why any further powers should be requisite. The police, if there is ground to think there is an infringement of the existing law, now go in. It has always been the case. I do not see why these powers they now have should not be adequate in the case of this additional restriction, if it is accepted.
I would add this additional point. It is in a sense somewhat invidious on the committees of clubs which are well run, if they, as it were, voluntarily impose this restriction—if they think it necessary in the light of their experience of clubs—and if they see next door or in the next street that there is a club which does not have the restriction. It imposes a very invidious burden upon them if they have to justify to their club members, or at any rate those club members who are less ruly in spirit, the reason why they seek to impose upon their club members a restriction which is not imposed on others. I should have thought it desirable to assist them and to remove that disadvantage under which they must suffer if the law is to remain unchanged.
I feel that there is a point in the consideration which the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) put before the House. It is, perhaps, rather unreasonable that the young man and the young woman of 17 who have been playing tennis should not be allowed to have a glass of shandy in their tennis club when they have done. I should have thought that the exception could have been made by following the model of Section 129 of the Licensing Act, 1953, that is to say, by providing that although alcoholic liquor must not be served to persons under the age of 18 nevertheless things like shandy and beer and cider and other—shall I say, innocuous, if that is the appropriate expression—[Laughter.]—I never thought that the list which I gave of innocuous drinks would evoke either so much mirth or so much opposition.
However, the list can be suitably truncated by eliminating from it those alcoholic drinks which are considered to be so noxious in their effect. I myself have in the country in the hot sun found that if one takes a glass of cider it may have a rather potent effect upon one's reactions, as strong beer, I have no doubt, will also. However, if it is thought that there should be, as it were, some leeway, some elbow room, provided for the consumption after a strenuous game of some innocuous or un-noxious alcoholic beverage it can be done on the model of Section 129—Section 129 of the Licensing Act, 1953, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is looking for it.
Broadly speaking, I would say that the Minister has not given proper consideration to this. I mean, that, though I am sure he has considered it properly, I think that his reasoning has not carried us very far. I think in the first place that he has misunderstood the mood of the House and the country on this. The fact that he has not received representations is not, I think, an end of the matter. I think that there is a great deal of feeling about this. I have received letters—I think other hon. Members have received letters—about it. I think that the Minister has misinterpreted the mood. Then I think that his argument that it would be difficult to enforce can be equally applied to any of the other prohibitions in the conduct of the internal affairs of clubs, and I do not


think that it would need any further police powers, which are already contained in the Bill and which have been always given to our law on the conduct of private clubs.
I think that the reasons which the Minister gave are found, on examination, not to be really sound, and I hope that he will say that he will reconsider this matter. He has been very reasonable throughout the course of the Bill in paying very careful attention to the views expressed, and I hope that he will on this occasion. If he does not, I hope that my hon. Friends will take the view of the House by pressing the Amendment to a Division.

6.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): I intervene only in deference to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and the other forceful and able speeches made in favour of the Amendment. I do so with all the more temerity because, in my view, the real case against the Amendment has been stated not only cogently but conclusively by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).

Mrs. Slater: Thoroughly illogical.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne represents the view of the House and of the country at large very much more than the run of the debate might have suggested. There are two possible extreme views about drinking by people under 18 years of age. The one is that there should be a complete prohibition on any person under 18 taking any alcoholic drink at all. The other is that there should be complete freedom for any young person to consume what he likes. Neither view has been urged in the debate, although the first view was the logical conclusion of many of the points and indeed of the phrases used in favour of the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. C. Royle), for example, said that access should be forbidden. The logic was in favour of the first view, and according to that there should be no drinking in the home because that is a source of evil, and there should be no drinking of cider or perry with a meal by a person under 18. But the case has been

argued on the basis that neither of those extreme views should prevail and that we should try to find a way between them.
The question therefore is where we should draw the line. Neither view can be put forward in an assembly of this sort, because it is too extreme. Where we draw the line is determined by two considerations. The first is the consideration of privacy and the second is the consideration of enforceability. I do not want to say much more about privacy. The case has been argued that it is possible to say that a club is more akin to a "pub" than to a home; but, nevertheless, the club is rightly regarded by club members as a private place and its privacy ought to be respected.
The real consideration against the Amendment, however, is on the point of enforceability. I disagree with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), with all his experience, when he says that he had never heard the police say that they could not enforce any provision contained in the law. We have had many recent examples of occasions where police have been unable to enforce the law. Recent examples which will be in the minds of hon. Members were the provisions governing street bookmaking. The police could not enforce the law and this had the serious result that the law was flaunted and brought into disrepute.

Mr. Mellish: That is a different matter to enforcing the law. The fact was that the law was being broken frequently, but there was no difficulty about enforcing it.

The Solicitor-General: I shall be dealing precisely with that point. I would emphasise that the law in that case was flaunted with impunity. Serious as may be the evil of young persons drinking too much, the evil of their seeing the law flaunted with impunity and, in some cases, with public approbation, is far more serious. That is what would happen if we tried to write into the Bill the provisions in the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) mentioned workingmen's clubs. It is true that many of them have a byelaw on this subject. One whole group has a byelaw which forbids the sale of drink and, indeed,


I believe, forbids membership by people under 18. But another big group has no such provision, presumably 'because the clubs do not wish it to apply. In that case, if the Amendment were adopted, it would mean that the law might be broken in such premises with the general approbation of the members present. It would be thought unreasonable by many people that a boy just approaching 18 and doing a man's work could not be served. This would mean that not only could the police not enforce the law, but they would not know that it was being broken, because it would be broken with approbation. I repeat that nothing would be worse for young people than to see such a system prevail.
In the cases to which the right hon. and learned Member for Newport drew attention, the police will generally obtain information if the law is being broken. For example, they would see people coming out of the club after hours. The case which the hon. Member for Bermondsey mentioned under Clause 19 (2) is that of consumption off the premises, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is right when he says that if we want to make this provision in the Amendment enforceable it can only be done at the cost of greater police powers over the clubs, and I do not believe for a moment that the clubs or the public would wish to see that.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: Does the Solicitor-General not think that if the Amendment were passed as an enactment by the House of Commons it would be easy for club members to make sure that it was enforced? It would require only one member to draw attention to the fact that the law was being broken without necessarily calling in the police.

The Solicitor-General: If one club member was willing to inform on his fellow-members it could be enforced, but hon. Members might think of his position if he were the only one and the others disapproved. Hon. Members might also think of sports clubs. Would we really secure a general consensus of opinion among them in favour of a provision of this sort? It is, therefore, partly on the ground of privacy, but mainly on the ground of enforceability that we resist the Amendment. We are seeking in this Measure to provide that the law shall be brought into consonance with public

opinion so that it may be enforced. I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Mellish: Is the logic of what the Solicitor-General is saying that he sees no objection to clubs serving children of 11 years of age with drink? Will he answer?

The Solicitor-General: I will gladly answer. That certainly does not follow in logic or reason from what I have said.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: This is the first time that I have intervened in debate on the Bill, but I feel strongly about this Amendment and about the attitude adopted towards it by the Solicitor-General and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I can think of more than one club in the countryside and in small country towns where drink could be taken on the premises and consumed in privacy, but not in the privacy of the home. That can and does happen. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) whether Bentley and Craig were drinking alcoholic liquor before Craig murdered the policeman?

Mr. S. Silverman: I understand not.

Mr. Hayman: I accept that, but I suggest that there are many acts of violence of that kind for which young people under the age of 18 are responsible and who, at the time, have their inhibitions relaxed because of liquor.

Mr. Leslie Hale: My hon. Friend mentioned the case of Bentley and Craig. It is unfortunate that these cases are mentioned. Will my hon. Friend remember that the lad to whom he referred—he is out of prison, or is about to be released to start life afresh—was 15 at the time of the murder and was, therefore, one of the persons to whom the sale of drink was prohibited under the existing law?

Mr. Hayman: That is all the more reason for writing into the Bill a provision that clubs shall not sell to young people under 18 liquor which can be taken off the premises.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) is a leading member of the Magistrates' Association and speaks with great authority on magistrates' courts. He emphasised the


concern of magistrates about the increase in crimes of violence committed by people under 18. Surely it cannot be wrong to write into the Bill something which would be crystal clear to any layman. I speak as a layman, and I get a little tired of the legal dispositions which try to show that there is nothing wrong with the present position. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman know from their experience in the Home Office that crimes of violence among young people have increased considerably in recent years. We are all concerned about this

increase, and I hope that the House will not be misled by arguments about the rights and privacy of clubs.

Many of my hon. Friends who are members of clubs, heave spoken in support of the Amendment from the point of view of the clubs, but we must legislate to deal with the minority of clubs which will serve liquor without restraint to youngsters and thus help to debase them and the society in which we live.

Question put: That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 221.

Division No. 205.]
AYES
[6.13 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Proctor, W. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Redhead, E. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hilton, A. V.
Reid, William


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holman, Percy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bence, Cyril
Hoy, James H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, William


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hunter, A. E.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Boyden, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Short, Edward


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Skeffington, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Chetwynd, George
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Snow, Julian


Cordle, John
King, Dr. Horace
Sorensen, R. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McAdden, Stephen
Stones, William


Diamond, John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dodds, Norman
McLeavy, Frank
Symonds, J. B.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edelman, Maurice
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Albert
Marsh, Richard
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Finch, Harold
Mayhew, Christopher
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Eric
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, J. J.
Whitlock, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, John
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Ginsburg, David
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Crimond, J.
Oram, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gunter, Ray
Owen, Will
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pavitt, Laurence
Woof, Robert


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Peart, Frederick
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hannan, William
Pentland, Norman



Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Mr. Charles Boyle and Mr. Blyton




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Allason, James
Boyle, Sir Edward
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Arbuthnot, John
Braine, Bernard
Cleaver, Leonard


Atkins, Humphrey
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Cooper, A. E.


Barber, Anthony
Brooman-White, R.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Barlow, Sir John
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Corfield, F. V.


Barter, John
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Costain, A. P.


Batsford, Brian
Buck, Antony
Coulson, J. M.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bullard, Denys
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Burden, F. A.
Critchley, Julian


Berkeley, Humphry
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Crowder, F. P.


Biggs-Davison, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Cunningham, Knox


Bishop, F. P.
Cary, Sir Robert
Curran, Charles


Bossom, Clive
Channon, H. P. G.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Bourne-Arton, A.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Deedes, W. F.




de Ferranti, Basil
Jackson, John
Ramsden, James


Digby, Simon wingfield
James, David
Rawlinson, Peter


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Eden, John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Renton, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kitson, Timothy
Rippon, Geoffrey


Errington, Sir Eric
Lagden, Godfrey
Robertson, Sir David


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leather, E. H. C.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Farr, John
Leburn, Gilmour
Roots, William


Fell, Anthony
Lilley, F. J. P.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Martin
Seymour, Leslie


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Shaw, M.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lichfield, Capt. John
Shepherd, William


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Gammans, Lady
Longden, Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gardner, Edward
Loveys, Walter H.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntfrd &amp; Chiswick)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smithers, Peter


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
MacArthur, Ian
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Goodhart, Philip
McLaren, Martin
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Goodhew, Victor
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
McMaster, Stanley R.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stodart, J. A.


Green, Alan
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cresham Cooke, R.
Marshall, Douglas
Storey, Sir Samuel


Grimston, Sir Robert
Marten, Neil
Studholme, Sir Henry


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Gurden, Harold
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tapsell, Peter


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray
Teeling, William


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Temple, John M.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Mills, Stratton
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harris, Reader (Heston)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nabarro, Gerald
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Turten, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hay, John
Nugent, Sir Richard
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Parker, John
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hiley, Joseph
Partridge, E.
Walder, David


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Walker, Peter


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Peel, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Holland, Philip
Peyton, John
Whitelaw, William


Hollingworth, John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wiliams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hopkins, Alan
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hornby, R. P.
Pitman, Sir James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Pitt, Miss Edith
Woodnutt, Mark


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pott, Percivall
Woollam, John


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Prior, J. M. L.
Worsley, Marcus


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John



Hulbert, Sir Norman
Proudfoot, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis
Mr. Gibson-Watt and


Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Chichester-Clark

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 31, in line 20, at the end to insert:
(5) Nothing in section seventy-seven of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which relates to the Carlisle district), shall restrict the supply of intoxicating liquor by or on behalf of a club at club premises in respect of which the club is registered or at any such premises or place as mentioned in subsection (3) above.
This gives expression to a discussion which we had in Committee, when hon. Members asked that the Home Secretary's veto in respect of clubs in the Carlisle State Management District should no longer apply. I explained that the Home Secretary did not exercise his veto in respect of clubs but that I thought it reasonable, in view of the new proposals

in Part III of the Bill, that we should give legislative effect to what we carry out administratively. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) withdrew his Amendment then on my undertaking that I would move an Amendment on Report.

Mr. Fletcher: I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson), who is not here, will welcome this Amendment, but I am not sure that it will equally find favour with everyone on this side of the House, because, as some of my hon. Friends said in Committee, we are naturally rather suspicious about any Amendment proposed from the benches opposite which appears


to invade the principle enshrined in what is generally known as the Carlisle scheme, which introduced, experimentally and successfully, a measure of State control in a limited area over licensed premises in Carlisle.
I have not been to Carlisle myself, but the information reaching me is that the experiment has worked extremely well and that there is no popular feeling in Carlisle desirous of making a change. Therefore, the question for this House, in considering this Bill, is whether there is any reason why we should make any inroads in the principle that is working so well there. The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to explain why the Bill should not stand as drawn and why, in future, clubs which come under the provisions of the Bill should not, in addition to obtaining any necessary local permission, also obtain the sanction of the Home Secretary. It is difficult to explain how otherwise the Home Secretary will be able to exercise that general supervision over conditions in Carlisle, which was the whole object and purpose of the Carlisle experiment.
I should have thought that if the Home Secretary's jurisdiction under Part III is removed from clubs in Carlisle, this would seriously affect the validity of the experiment being tried out there. For these reasons, I think that the House would probably wish to hear some further explanation before this Amendment is accepted.

Mr. Vosper: I did not give a fuller explanation because all this Amendment does is to draft correctly an

Amendment which the Standing Committee accepted in principle at an earlier stage. I then said that the Home Secretary has not normally exercised his veto, which he has under Section 77 of the 1953 Act, in respect of clubs for many years. But my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) pressed, through his Amendment, that we should give legislative effect to what we do administratively. That is what this Amendment, and a later one, do.

In view of the stricter requirements under Part III which are imposed on clubs, it seems unreasonable that the Home Secretary shall also be required to give his permission for the establishment of registered clubs in Carlisle. The powers under Part III are so much more effective than the powers under the 1953 Act that there should be no need for the Home Secretary to exercise his own powers as well. In fact, for a large number of years he has not sought to administer his veto and any reputable club seeking to be established in Carlisle has not met with opposition from him. This has nothing to do with restaurants or residential premises but is solely concerned with registered clubs which have, for a number of years, been established if the justices are so agreeable.

Mr. Fletcher: I rise again, by leave of the House, to say that there is a question of principle involved here and I think that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to test the matter in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That those words be inserted in the Bill:

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 87.

Division No. 206.]
AYES
[6.28 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Allason, James
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Critchley, Julian


Arbuthnot, John
Buck, Antony
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver


Atkins, Humphrey
Bullard, Denys
Cunningham, Knox


Berber, Anthony
Burden, F. A.
Curran, Charles


Barlow, Sir John
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Barter, John
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Deedes, W. F.


Batsford, Brian
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
de Ferranti, Basil


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Bell, Ronald
Cary, Sir Robert
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Berkeley, Humphry
Channon, H. P. G.
du Cann, Edward


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Eden, John


Bishop, F. P.
Cleaver, Leonard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Black, Sir Cyril
Cole, Norman
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Bossom, Clive
Cooper, A. E.
Emery, Peter


Bourne-Arton, A.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cordle, John
Errington, Sir Eric


Boyle, Sir Edward
Corfield, F. V.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Braine, Bernard
Costain, A. P.
Farr, John


Brooman-White, R.
Coulson, J. M.
Finlay, Graeme




Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Leburn, Gilmour
Renton, David


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lindsay, Martin
Ridsdale, Julian


Cammans, Lady
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Rippon, Geoffrey


Gardner, Edward
Litchfield, Capt. John
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; s'th'ld)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Glyn, Or, Alan (Clapham)
Longden, Gilbert
Roots, William


Goodhart, Philip
Loveys, Walter H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Goodhew, Victor
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Seymour, Leslie


Grant, Rt, Hon. William
McAdden, Stephen
Shaw, M.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
MacArthur, Ian
Shepherd, William


Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grimond, J.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Grimston, Sir Robert
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Smithers, Peter


Grosvenor. Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gurden, Harold
Marshall, Douglas
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marten, Neil
Stevens, Geoffrey


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Stodart, J. A.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcoln


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray
Storey, Sir Samuel


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mills, Stratum
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Tapsell, Peter


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, John
Teeling, William


Hay, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Temple, John M.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Gerald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Noble, Michael
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hiley, Joseph
Nugent, Sir Richard
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hill, Or. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turner, Colin


Holland, Philip
Partridge, E.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hopkins, Alan
Peel, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hornby, R. P.
Percival, Ian
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Peyton, John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walder, David


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Ward, Dame Irene


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitman, Sir James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pitt, Miss Edith
Whitelaw, William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pott, Percivall
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, J. M. L.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Jackson, John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


James, David
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Woodnutt, Mark


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pym, Francis
Woollam, John


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Worsley, Marcus


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ramsden, James
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Kirk, Peter
Rawlinson, Peter



Kitson, Timothy
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Leather, E. H. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Gibson-Watt and




Mr. J. E. B. Hill.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hannan, William
Parker, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Pavitt, Laurence


Bence, Cyril
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Popplewell, Ernest


Benson, Sir George
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hilton, A. V.
Proctor, W. T.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Holman, Percy
Randall, Harry


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Bar)
Redhead, E. C.


Boyden, James
Hoy, James H.
Reid, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Ross, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Dodds, Norman
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Short, Edward


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edelman, Maurice
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Evans, Albert
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wake field)
Skeffington, Arthur


Fernyhough, E.
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, Julian


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lipton, Marcus
Sorensen, R. W.


Galpern, Sir Myer
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Marsh, Richard
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Gunter, Ray
Noel-Baker Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Stones, William


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oram, A. E.
Sylvester, George


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Owen, Will
Symonds, J. B.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)







Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)



Wells, Percy (Favertham)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Whitlock, William
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. Goronwy Roberts and


Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Woof, Robert
Mr. Morris.


Wilkins, W. A.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Clause 20.—(QUALIFICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION.)

Mr. William Stones: I beg to move, in page 33, to leave out lines 4 and 5.
If my interpretation of the paragraph to which the Amendment refers is correct, many working-men's clubs can be and probably will be seriously affected by its provisions. Subsection (8) says:
Subject to subsection (9) below, in determining whether a club is established and con, ducted in good faith as a club a magistrates' court may have regard"—
and these are the lines referred to—
to any arrangement restricting the club's freedom of purchase of intoxicating liquor…
Working men want their club premises to be built and maintained to a modern standard of comfort. As many hon. Members are aware, many workingmen's clubs have premises which are a joy to behold and which are a credit to the working men themselves.
In the north-east of England, a part of the country to which I belong, and, I suppose, in many other parts of the United Kingdom, hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent on building new and modernising existing premises so as to provide the desired comfort. In many instances, the capital has to be borrowed. In my own area, most of the money for building and modernising premises has been loaned by the Northern Clubs Federation Brewery and in other cases by private brewers.
Those loans are at very moderate rates of interest and have made it possible for working men throughout the area to provide themselves with desirable club premises. The breweries, naturally, expect a guarantee in return for their money. Consequently, they ask the clubs to enter into an agreement whereby they purchase at least a good proportion of their intoxicants from the brewery.
Such an agreement between a club and a federation brewery or a private brewery may well be considered to be an arrangement restricting the club in the purchase of intoxicants. According to subsection (8), the magistrates may have regard to

that in determining whether a club is established and conducted in good faith when seeking a registration certificate. The magistrates might also decide that a club having such an agreement with a brewery was not established and conducted in good faith and they might refuse to grant a certificate.
Suppose that a club already in existence has an arrangement with a brewery from which thousands of pounds has been borrowed and most of it is still outstanding. The magistrates might refuse to grant a registration certificate on the ground that there is an agreement restricting the purchase of intoxicants. How can such a club then be expected to repay the money if it is not allowed to continue?
What about the working men in a recently built-up area or new town who are desirous of starting a club but lack the capital? If they are prevented from entering into an arrangement with the brewery, how are they to provide the necessary money? I doubt whether the necessary finances would be provided by any financial concern outside the breweries. In any event, it is difficult to get such a loan at such moderate rates of interest.
Unless my interpretation is wrong and these two lines in the Bill are deleted, working men are likely to be prevented from providing a number of better premises and in quite a number of cases they will find their clubs in great difficulty. I ask the Minister to consider what I have said and to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Vosper: It certainly is not the intention of the Bill to prevent the sort of practice to which the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Stones) has referred. By the first Amendment moved today the House has shown itself anxious to ensure that a strict control over clubs is exercised. At the same time, the House has shown itself aware of the rights of the clubs. As the hon. Member knows, in Committee on the Bill we were able to move and accept several Amendments which, I hope, have gone a long way to meeting the fears of clubs, particularly working-men's clubs.
One of the requirements of the Bill, however, is that the control of the liquor shall be in the hands of the members. That requirement is contained in Part HI of the Bill. It would, of course, be possible for the control of the liquor to be in the hands of the members and for the club proprietor—the man who wished to make a profit out of the sale of liquor—to control the course of supply of liquor. In such a case, the fact that the elective committee controlled the liquor would not prevent the club promoter from exercising the control which he would normally have exercised in a proprietary club.
Therefore, it is important that there shall be some way of preventing the promoter of the drink or bogus club exercising this control and evading the normal control of the club by being the sole supplier of the liquor. Therefore, the subsection to which the hon. Member has drawn attention enables the court to have regard to
any arrangement restricting the club's freedom of purchase of intoxicating liquor".
It is designed purely for the case of the individual who might wish to evade the other provisions of the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
There is no intention of interfering with the supply of liquor to the genuine club, albeit through a tie of which the hon. Member for Consett has spoken. I appreciate that it would be more satisfactory from the hon. Member's point of view if we were able to write into the Bill that the sort of tie which he has in mind is legal and the sort of tie which I have in mind is illegal. I am advised, however, that that is not legislatively practicable. Therefore, we have used the words that the "court may have regard" to this and to other provisions.
Having checked on this, I have no reason to believe that the court would take an unfavourable view of the sort of tie which the hon. Member has in mind What the magistrates have to consider under the terms of the Clause is whether the tie is compatible with the genuine club. Obviously, the clubs which the hon. Member has in mind are genuine clubs. The courts must interpret this provision in accordance with the words at the beginning of subsection (8).
established and conducted in good faith".

Therefore, the court, knowing that the clubs which the hon. Member has in mind are established and conducted in good faith, would not seek to refuse them registration simply because they had the sort of tie of which the hon. Member has spoken.
If we accepted the Amendment and deleted these words, it would be possible for the bogus club promoter to evade the normal provisions of Part III and to make his profit out of the sale of drink by means of this tie. I hope that the hon. Member will accept my assurance and not press the Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Stones) would be only too willing to accept the assurance of the Minister of State if it could be said to be safe in quality. I do not mean that in any sense of disrespect. What my hon. Friend and what the working-men's clubs are anxious about is this. The individual decision has to be given by magistrates. Magistrates may differ in opinion. If they see the wording of the subsection before them, they may well regard it as an indication by Parliament that the kind of arrangement to which my hon. Friend has called attention—that is, the arrangement with a brewery to take only its liquor—is a ground which Parliament has inserted in the Bill specifically to ensure that registration certificates will be refused.
That constitutes a real threat to working-men's clubs. As my hon. Friend pointed out, they sink a large amount of money in providing up-to-date, first-class premises. That is an extremely expensive undertaking. The more they spend on trying to ensure that the premises are in every way suitable, up-to-date and modern and such as the Government and the public would approve, the more it can be said that they put themselves at the mercy of these two lines of subsection (8).
My hon. Friend certainly has in mind what the Minister has said, but he is thinking that in, say, five or ten years' time, a bench of magistrates, reading the Act for the first time and not having in mind what the Minister has said, may think, "This is one of the guides which we are to have in mind. In the case of this club, there is a binding agreement with a brewery limiting the right of the club to purchase its liquor to a right to


purchase only from that brewery." The magistrates may decide that the two lines in question are the plain indication by Parliament that they are to regard that sort of practice as a disqualification for the obtaining of a registration certificate.
That is the danger facing the clubs. Whatever the Minister says—and nobody doubts his good faith—it is hardly a guarantee for clubs which may find themselves in the situation which my hon. Friend has indicated. My hon. Friend would, I am sure, accept, as I do, that there is a real need to have in the Bill some kind of provision of the sort imposed in paragraph (a). He and I will certainly agree that there is an easy way round the provisions of the Bill. A club committee may be in general control but the promoter may have sole domination over the purveying of drinks in that club. That would be an easy way round the Bill's provisions and it would be highly undesirable.
I therefore ask the Minister to give us an assurance that between now and when the Bill goes to another place he will reconsider the language. He should try to insert language which will prevent the kind of abuse which he has described, but which, at the same time, will not place bona fide working-men's clubs in serious embarrassment. Some of these clubs have committed themselves heavily, financially, by borrowing for the laudable purpose of constructing desirable premises in which to carry on the club. They have been able to do that only by entering into an agreement with a brewery undertaking, which might make them fall plumb within the paragraph, worded as it is
It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that he has made inquiries and that the magistrates will not generally interpret the Bill in the sense that we fear. That may be true of some but magistrates differ in their opinions, and as the years go by they may entirely forget what the Minister has in mind. In the end, they can be guided only by the words of the Statute, and it may be interpreted quite differently later on. I hope that the Minister will agree to consider the wording between the present date and the further progress of the Bill, and see whether he can amend it in the sense that we desire.

Sir Lionel Heald: I support the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), I have had close personal connections with some of these clubs, and I know what reputable people their members are and how anxious they are to protect their reputation. It seems wrong that language should be inserted which, on the face of it, appears to cover something which the Minister has clearly stated it is not desired should be covered.
If this wording were to be interpreted in the way suggested by the right hon. and learned Member, it would be a very serious matter for certain of these clubs against whom nothing has been or can be said. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the matter again. He has not told us whether any great effort has been made to devise a form of wording, but it should not be beyond the wit of man to ensure that magistrates have a little more guidance. It is rather alarming to be told that my hon. Friend's inquiries have indicated that magistrates will not do a certain thing. I do not know how anybody can arrive at a conclusion of what magistrates will do in relation to any situation, and in this case I would think that it would depend very much on the locality and the people concerned.
I appreciate the difficulty of drafting a provision which will do justice to the clubs concerned. This difficulty arises from the fact—perhaps it cannot be avoided—that they are included in a number of other provisions which also deal with other kinds of clubs which are, or potentially may be, of a very different character. Every effort should be made to safeguard the position of working men's clubs in this case.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I should be more satisfied about the position if the Minister would make it clear beyond doubt that bona fide working-men's clubs are excluded from this provision. It is very difficult to follow the meaning of the language of the Clause. In his original speech the right hon. Member referred to the club proprietor. In a bona fide working-men's club there is no such person. Reference to a club proprietor obviously implies a reference to a club other than a bona fide working-men's club, registered under the provisions of certain Statutes.
It also appears to me that a magistrate will have some difficulty in interpreting these provisions. I cannot speak of what are called bogus or vice clubs; I have never been a member of any such institution. But I know something about the working-men's clubs in my constituency. Their position varies. I know one well-established club which has been in existence for forty or fifty years which has been in the habit of purchasing its liquor supply from a certain brewery. For some reason or other—either because of a deterioration in the quality, or an increase in the price demanded—that club might seek to change its source of supply. It might decide to transfer its custom from a private brewers' organisation to the Northern Clubs Federation Brewery, which is established in the County of Northumberland but also serves clubs in Durham and Cumberland. It is a non-profit-making organisation, and clubs might well find it desirable to transfer their custom to it.
Am I to understand that a magistrate can make inquiries to find why such a transfer has been proposed, or, 'having been proposed, has been effected? This seems an unwarrantable interference by a magistrates' bench in the activities of a bona fide working-men's club. From the outset I have been opposed to including bona fide working-men's clubs in the Bill. Now that they have been included, those who are disposed to render support to these excellent institutions—support largely of a social character, although occasionally political, and not necessarily on the Labour side—

Sir L. Heald: The right hon. Gentleman will probably agree that in the registered working-men's clubs politics are completely taboo. I certainly do not allow them in mine.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand the right hon. and learned Member to say that he does not support bona fide working-men's clubs?

Sir L. Heald: No. I said that in the registered working-men's clubs with which I have been associated for many years politics are absolutely taboo.

Mr. Shinwell: It depends on one's definition of politics. The hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans), who is not present

—and I am not complaining about that—recently informed me that he would pay a visit to my constituency. When I inquired the reason he told me that he had been invited to address an aggregate meeting of club members in my constituency. I thought at the time that he must be impinging on my preserves. But he corrected my impression by telling me that he was addressing an aggregate meeting of Conservative clubs. I did not seek his assurance that he would not indulge in any political observations and tricks of that sort, but one never can tell. I am bound to say that were I invited to address Conservative workingmen's clubs in the aggregate—

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. These speculations are attractive, but I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to return to the Amendment.

Mr. Shinwell: It is precisely as I suspected. I was drawn into this "vortex" by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald).
I also seek the assurance for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) was asking, that the words contained in this part of the Bill should be clarified so as to make abundantly clear that bona fide working-men's clubs will not be affected; and that there will be no unwarranted inquiry and investigation by a magistrate, or a bench of magistrates, into the procedure adopted by these clubs, either relating to the method of purchasing their liquor supply or into transfers from a profit-making private organisation to a non-profit-making organisation.

Mr. Vosper: I will certainly do what has been asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and look at these words again. But I do not want to appear too hopeful about it. This part of the Bill was drafted after exceptionally careful consideration and preparation. There are those who are only too anxious to take advantage of any loophole in the law. Nevertheless if there is any way of meeting the point contained in this Amendment we shall do something about it. There is no doubt that the


language used in these words is to prohibit the sort of clubs which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in mind.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that the statement that inquiries of magistrates had revealed that they would not interpret this the wrong way was not sufficient. I did not say that. I said that my advice was that there was no reason to believe that the courts would interpret this provision unreasonably. I will certainly have the words examined to see whether we can improve on them, but I am anxious not to appear hopeful.

Mr. Norman Cole: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State cannot be hopeful. In these two lines, and in many parts of Part III of this Bill, he is trying to impose the same legislation on those sort of clubs which we wish to see continue as on those sort of clubs which we should like to see abolished. My right hon. Friend is up against an almost insoluble problem.

Mr. Vosper: My hon. Friend will understand that had these words been drafted too widely we should allow to continue the very clubs which it is sought to deal with.

Mr. Cole: My hon. Friend needs only to include such words as
providing such arrangement is made with the knowledge of and for the benefit of all the members.
That would stop any proprietary person from making something on the side.

Mr. Ede: I am quite sure that magistrates, when considering this matter in the magistrates' room, will interpret these two lines as preventing there being any tied clubs. I am opposed to tied houses, but I recollect that the present Lord Chancellor once explained to the House of Commons that, in view of the modern requirements for building in respect of licensed premises, it was virtually impossible for private people to put up the necessary capital, and that, therefore, it was probable that all public houses in the future would be tied.
I know the difficulty confronting my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Stones). I should object to a club being tied to a private brewer. But the case of the Federation to which he

alluded is, in my opinion, rather different. It is a co-operative society running a brewery and the members are working-men's clubs in the area covered by the federation. To my mind, that is a different proposition from a brewer who might be acting in the same way.
We have had the advantage of the views of two past Attorneys-General about the position which will arise if these two lines remain in the Bill, and the matter comes up for consideration by a licensing committee when it is considering the circumstances dealt with in subsection (8). For once, I find myself in the happy position of being able to agree simultaneously with two right hon. and learned Gentlemen. Against that, I am asked to accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State who, in all good faith, has assured us about what magistrates will consider when they have two lines as specific as this before them.
The right hon. and learned Solicitor-General is present on the Government Front Bench. I wonder whether he would tell us about what limits there would be on the discussion in a magistrates' room, so that we may know what weight we can place on the assurances given by his right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
I think that something should be provided to prevent individual breweries from establishing a kind of monopoly over clubs in areas, such as we have seen in relation to licensed houses. In these days of amalgamations of breweries, which occur one after the other, one wonders how soon we shall arrive at the happy position to which Lord Hugh Cecil used to refer, when we shall have one organisation, and the State, in one purchase, will be able to take over the whole lot. I am in favour of the Carlisle system.
This is a Committee matter. In the past, the problems of licensing have depended on the way in which magistrates have interpreted the law. Very often they have done so in accordance with the individual views which they hold, which might not of necessity always be favourable to securing a reasonable distribution of licensed premises in an area. I do not use licensed premises for the purchase of intoxicating liquor, but I think that there should be a sufficient


number of such premises so that people who wish to obtain intoxicating liquor may be able to get it. If they take too much to drink, I hope that we shall not be told that the police find themselves incapable of enforcing the law against them for making a nuisance of themselves to others.
If I may refer to the problem connected with working-men's clubs, and particularly the federation operating in the northern counties, it is clear that the words in the Bill cannot be interpreted by magistrates if they merely have regard to the ordinary meaning of the English language; and it is necessary to make quite certain that no tie is attached to the premises in which the club exists. Where the club is a member of a cooperative brewery, that might work out very harmfully in the case of a large number of excellent clubs, including several In my constituency which have been established by the federation, and which, I hope, will be able to continue to enjoy what they at present have without being subject to frequent consideration by a licensing bench.

Mr. William Shepherd: It is quite clear that the majority of us are anxious to see that the arrangements such as have been mentioned by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment are not prevented by the law and we would except breweries whether they happened to be federated or not. Would my right hon. Friend consider putting after the word "arrangements" the words, "other than with breweries or bona fide suppliers"? If those words were in I think the position would be safeguarded.

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: The Minister of State said that he had no desire to give any hope or encouragement to the belief that there could be a change from the present position. That is very important if efforts are to be made to improve the standards of clubs throughout the country, particularly in mining communities. There clubs have been established for fifty or sixty years and the premises were very old when they were taken over as clubs. A serious and encouraging effort is being made by clubs throughout the industrial parts of the country to carry out considerable extensions to premises and to bring them up to modern standards.
The Minister also said that he was concerned about the management of clubs and the Bill was intended to deal specifically with the type of club and club-management which he had in mind. I think it is not beyond the wit of the Solicitor-General to redraft this paragraph in a manner which should give the utmost protection to well-established clubs. If the provision is not changed, I am of opinion that it will act as a deterrent. Clubs will not be prepared to take the risk of borrowing fresh capital to carry out extensions because of their fear of the interpretation which would be placed on the Clause by respective managements.
I suggest that this could be easily overcome if the words were added:
may have regard to any arrangement restricting the club's freedom of purchase of intoxicating liquor other than those purchases which are sanctioned by the elected committee.
The elected committee will be a body which has the authority of the club and the confidence of the club. It is recognised in the other provisions of the Bill as the competent body to manage the affairs of the club. If such a proviso were put into the Bill it would meet with general satisfaction.

7.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I think there is a general concensus of opinion that we do not want the Clause to provide a loophole for the undesirable clubs which Part III of the Bill is primarily designed to put out of business. On the other hand, the arrangements to which the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Stones) and the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) have drawn attention, which I know very well, are in our view entirely desirable and have had the beneficial effect which they described.
I venture to disagree with the interpretation put on this Clause that it would preclude such arrangements. The reason for that, in the first place, is that the Clause does not say that:
any arrangement restricting the club's freedom of purchase of intoxicating liquor shall he a disqualification.
What it says is completely neutral—that in determining whether a club is "conducted in good faith as a club" the court may have regard to certain matters. This is ony one of four matters


to which the court may have regard. The others are also completely neutral. It may have regard "to the nature of the premises", and that is just as neutral, as is "arrangements for giving members proper information".
However, in view of what has been said, I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, that we shall re-examine the drafting of this paragraph in a genuine desire to meet the points which have been raised. I must not be taken as giving any categorical assurance that we can find such a form of words, but we shall do our best to do so.
For the reasons I have given, I do not think the Clause would operate in the way that is feared, but I shall certainly consider all the suggestions which have been made and consider with the draftsmen whether we can meet the point made by the hon. Member for Consett.

Mr. Stones: Because I believe there will be a sincere effort my the right hon. and learned Gentleman to meet our desires, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, in page 33, line 32 to leave out from "it" to "is" in line 35 and to insert:
is proved that a person who if a certificate is granted will during the currency of the certificate or is likely during its currency to take any active part in the management of the club".

Mr. Speaker: It may be for the general convenience of the House to consider with this Amendment the following Amendments:
In page 33, line 36, leave out 
character, associations or antecedents
and insert:
known character as proved to the court
In line 36, leave out "associations or antecedents".
In line 36, leave out "associations".
In line 36, leave out "associations or antecedents" and insert:
or the character of persons with whom he habitually associates".

Sir F. Soskice: This group of Amendments deals with a very important aspect in the Bill. Subsection (10) of the

Clause is a subsection, indeed the only one, which enacts that there shall be a refusal of a registration certificate if persons associated with the club are of bad character. I am quite sure the whole House will recognise that as an absolutely indispensable provision. I should not for a moment seek to whittle it down or to ask for its complete removal.
We discussed this Clause very fully when the Bill was before the Standing Committee, and virtually two points were made on it. One point was that there was a considerable degree of uncertainty about the individuals referred to in the subsection, that is to say, the individuals referred to in the words:
a member of the committee…or of any committee having the general management of the affairs of the club, or other officer of the club.
The first objection was that those words were unsatisfactory because, looked at from one point of view, they went too far and, looked at from another point of view, they were not very precise in their meaning. The second objection was to the words:
in view of his character, associations or antecedents
The subsection provides that if any of the individuals concerned is unfit:
in view of his character, associations or antecedents
a registration certificate may be refused.
The objection to those words was that, in the first place, they were extremely vague. What did one mean by "associations"? What did one include in the scope of the word "antecedents"? It we said that it was unfair to people who controlled clubs because the wording was so wide-ranging in possible extent. It was also said that it should be made clearly apparent in the terms of the subsection that the onus of showing that one of the individuals listed was unfit should be upon those who asserted it and it should not be upon the club to demonstrate that all those associated with the club were fit.
I will try to dissect the situation by saying that so far as the second lot of objections are concerned, those which centre on the question of onus and upon the vagueness of the words "character, associations or antecedents", it seems to me that the Amendment in the name of the Home Secretary to line 36 is


ample and satisfactory to meet the objections raised. I thank the Ministers in charge of the Bill for the change which they have introduced. It completely and utterly satisfies me it places the onus where it should be and it makes the cardinal word "character", the words inserted by the proposed Amendment being:
known character as proved to the court".
in place of the words "character associations or antecedents."
Therefore, I would put aside the second objection and say that I am very grateful to the Government for their Amendment.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be good enough to define the term which the Government propose to insert:
known character as proved to the court"?

Sir F. Soskice: I can furnish many examples. If the individual had just come out of gaol having served ten years for fraud and that was clearly established, I should say that the words
known character as proved to the court
would probably be regarded as satisfied by the bench. The words are perfectly plain in meaning and can be elucidated only by furnishing examples. Fraud, violent behaviour, serious crime, and grossly dishonest behaviour, if proved, would demonstrate that a person was of a character unfit to be associated with a club. I hope that that satisfies my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Shinwell: Let us assume that some person associated with a club had been guilty of an act of petty larceny and had had to serve a short term of imprisonment, or he may have been heavily fined, and then applies for registration. Would it be a known character proved to the court?

Sir F. Soskice: It is not for me to justify the Government's Amendment, but I would have thought that the answer that one would have to give to my right hon. Friend was that it was a matter that would have to be judged by reference to the circumstances. Assuming that the man had been convicted many years before, could it be shown that he had since then lived a perfectly respectable life? Could it be shown that the circumstances in which the larceny

was committed were circumstances in which there was temptation or pressure, perhaps indigence impelling the person to commit the offence? All such circumstances would have to be taken into account. No doubt the magistrates would take a sensible and human view and look at what the person had done and how he had lived since he had committed the offence. They would ask the plain, ordinary, human question "Is it proved to us that this man's character is such that he ought not to be allowed to be associated with the club?"
Speaking for myself, if I were told that a person had committed an offence of petty larceny many years previously and had then lived a perfectly respectable life, I should say that he was fitted to be associated with the club. But it is a matter for the individual judgment of the magistrates. They should bring their judgment to bear on a particular case as is done every day in all our courts. Without that the administration of justice would be completely impossible. One cannot say "Yes" or "No" to the question whether in a certain case a person's character is known to be such as to make him unfit to be associated with a club. It must depend on the circumstances.
It seems to me that the first objection remains open to consideration. I am not violently enthusiastic for the words which I have chosen and put in my Amendment really for the purpose of eliciting the Government's views and perhaps exciting some discussion and debate on the topic. It seems to me I urge this in support of the words which I have chosen—that the acid test should be this: "Is the individual whom one is considering a person who during the period for which the certificate would operate—during the year or for a longer period, as the case may be—shown to be a person who will have an active part in the management of the club?"
That seems to be the test which should be applied. That is, after all, what the enactment is seeking to deal with. It is seeking to prevent a situation in which a registration certificate is granted to a club which is under the influence, which may be guided or actively conducted in one way or another by one of these undesirable persons. The object of the


draftsman in trying to pinpoint the individual with whom one is concerned would have been, I should have thought, to try to limit him to somebody who will be actively concerned with the management of the club. I know that these words are not capable of precise definition, but the situation is one which is not capable of complete precision. It differs according to the circumstances. Consequently, I put forward these words in an endeavour to deal with a situation and a difficulty.
The words which are in the subsection seem to me to be open to some objection. It is, perhaps, placing rather too heavy an onus on the club to say that it must search through the membership of all the committees of the club and inquire into the character of all members of the committee, who will no doubt have done their best to conceal from their fellow members of the club and the committee anything which they wish to hide.
There is some rather general language in the formula. What is a
committee having the general management of the affairs of the club"?
There are also the words "or other officer". I should have thought that those terms were not altogether satisfactory. So far as I can discover "officer" is not defined in the Bill. I suppose that a doorkeeper or a bartender might be regarded as an officer.
It seems rather hard upon those responsible for managing a club, perhaps with a large membership and disposing of very considerable funds, that they should, in effect, have to guarantee the character of everybody who might fall within the broad purview of the language which is at present in the subsection.
I suggest to the House that the wording which I have chosen—I accept at once that it is far from ideal—is preferable because it strives for a more specific result. It poses the test whether during the currency of the certificate the person concerned is likely to take an active part in the management of the club—will he do so, or is he likely to do so? I propose that test for the consideration of the Government, and I trust that the Government will at least consider it between the present stage of the Bill and its progress to another place.

The Solicitor-General: When we discussed the subsection in the Standing Committee there was no difference of opinion as to our objectives. We wanted to make sure that the club was not used for the benefit of somebody of bad character who was using it for his own evil purposes. We particularly wanted to make sure that the committee was not a "front" organisation with someone behind it who was a person of bad character running the club for his own purposes and as likely as not in a highly undesirable way.
On the other hand, the drafting was criticised from both sides of the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) objected to the words
if it appears to
the bench
that a member of the committee
and so on, on the ground that the wording was either altogether too vague or did not demand affirmative evidence or that it put the onus of proof on the committee. I ventured to disagree with that, but I promised to look into it, as I also promised to look into the drafting of the phrase "character, associations or antecedents". The word "associations", particularly, met with general disapprobation, less on its own statutory intrinsic merits than because of the overtones of MacCarthyism and guilt by association
7.30 p.m.
I promised to find an alternative form of words if one could he found. The Government have tabled an alternative formula—
known character as proved to the court
hoping thereby to meet both the objections of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am very grateful for his kind reception of the Government Amendment. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) asked about the scope of such a formula. I do not think that I can improve on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation. It must be read in its context. It must be his
known character as proved to the court
whereby he is not a fit person to be concerned in the management of a registered club.
It clearly lets in any previous conviction, but nobody would suggest for one moment that a conviction for riding a


bicycle on a footpath would make any body unfit to be concerned in the management of a registered club. On the other hand, one can conceive of serious offences, whether criminal or not, involving fraud and other crimes of dishonesty which would, in the opinion of any reasonable bench, render a person unfit to be concerned in the management of a club.
It comes down to this. It is obviously not every previous offence. One must look at all the circumstances and hear in mind how long ago the offence was and how serious it was. That sort of thing can be safely left to a magistrates' court.
I come now to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment in page 33, line 32. He argued the case in support of it. As I shall advise the House to accept the Amendment, which is an improvement on the wording of the Clause, I need not rehearse again the arguments he put forward so clearly. It guards against what I feared was a slight danger in the Government Amendment, namely, that the Government Amendment if it stood alone might not reach the person who stands behind the committee and uses the committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment extends to that but goes no further in any undesirable way. In that respect, it is an improvement. The two Amendments can stand perfectly well together and I advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice: May I, with the permission of the House, thank the Solicitor-General very cordially for his acceptance of my Amendment? I am very grateful to him.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and the Solicitor-General have very properly drawn attention to the importance of the Clause and, therefore, of the Amendments. Indeed, no one would want to dispute the intention of the Clause, which is to prevent men of known bad character taking part in the management of clubs, either by directing such management or by employing a group of "front men" to act on their behalf.
There is great anxiety among members of working-men's clubs in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the

Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man). Some people are greatly concerned lest, because of the interpretation by magistrates of what constitutes a bad character, they may be in some way disbarred from engaging in their duties as managers or committee men of clubs.
Not long ago one club man came to me in great agitation. He said that in his youth he had been convicted of stealing a bicycle. He wanted to know whether that was likely in future to be used against him under the Clause. It may well be said, without seeking to define what a bad character is, that that is a peccadillo and, consequently, would be regarded as such by magistrates. However, magistrates are inclined to be moved by the attendant circumstances in which even police court offences are committed.
There is an important semantic difference between offences according to the type of people committing them. For example, when an undergraduate takes a bicycle from outside his college it is often considered to be an undergraduate prank. If a factory worker takes a bicycle from outside a factory it is often stigmatised as a singularly mean theft. A person who goes into a public library and leaves with a book without permission is promptly labelled a book thief. If he is a member of the London Library and goes away with a book without permission he is called a bibliophile.
It is very important that we should recognise that, unless we tighten as much as possible the definition of what a bad character is, we may expose many club managers and committee men to the unconscious prejudices of the magistrates who have to adjudicate in these matters. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport that the phrase
known character as proved to the court
now proposed by the Government is undoubtedly an improvement on the vague phrase
character, associations, or antecedents",
Even accepting that, I am not wholly satisfied, unless the Solicitor-General can tighten the definition more closely, that, as it stands, it will not expose individuals to abusive definitions by certain magistrates of what constitutes fitness to manage a club.
I have already given two examples of how what seems to be a trivial offence committed by one person may be regarded simply because of a definition of terms as offensive and bad behaviour tantamount to bad character in another person. I need not labour the point. I will only add that in certain circumstances one person may be considered a drunk and sent to prison. Another person is called an alcoholic and sent to a clinic. These are all matters of definition. Therefore, I do not think that we can lightly dismiss the intention of the Clause and the nature of the Amendment.
I am certainly not wholly satisfied that the phrase
known character as proved to the court
is sufficient to safeguard managers and committee men of clubs against a misuse of the very great powers now vested in magistrates by the Clause. After all, when the case against a potential manager or committee man has been proved in court a magistrate has only to reach the conclusion that a single individual is of bad character for the registration of the club to be refused. That opens up vast possibilities of prejudice.
After all, a prejudice is merely a judgment based on the pre-conceptions of the judge. Consequently, in view of the terms of the Clause as it stands, the Solicitor-General ought now to seek to give a more detailed reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington who properly interjected to ask what constitutes a known bad character. I am not satisfied that the peccadilloes of a man's youth may not be brought up against him and used unfavourably under the terms of the Clause.
Many people, in their youth and in different circumstances, have behaved in a drunk and disorderly way. For some it is an albatross around their necks for the rest of their lives; for others, it is treated as a juvenile aberration. We should not allow anything like that to be used in the Bill to stigmatise a man.
We see in the Street Offences Act—and I mention this only to draw a parallel—that we already have a class of known prostitutes. It would be very undesirable if a whole class of people were to be labelled as men of notorious

bad character in such a way as to preclude them from taking part in what is a spontaneous democratic institution that has served well the purpose of enabling people to meet in social activity, and preventing precisely the sort of thing against which the Bill is designed to legislate.

Mr. Shinwell: I suppose that there are hon. Members who would regard me as a known bad character, so one must be exceedingly careful before accepting such a provision as this. Before this Bill came to the House, I was invited to address several meetings in my constituency of members of bona fide, registered working-men's clubs. There are at least a score of them in my constituency and, in the larger mining areas, some have a membership of nearly 4,000.
When I sought to ascertain their views, I was first told that they wanted me to use my influence—they apparently think that I have considerable influence in this assembly, and with the Government—to get rid of the Bill altogether. They said, "Away with it—we don't want it. We don't mind you interfering with the vice clubs and the bogus clubs—get rid of them. They are in the South; we don't have them in the North." That may he an exaggeration—

Mr. Speaker: I gather that these gentlemen who were addressing the right hon. Gentleman were not subject to any rules of order, but we in this House are bound by them.

Mr. Shinwell: I am leading up to my principal argument, Mr. Speaker. What they said was, "Get rid of the Bill but, at any rate, stop these prying, nosey magistrates from interfering in our business." They are afraid of those magistrates. I know that people can be good and able magistrates, but others are not so good and so able. After all, we have to consider how they are appointed, and from whom they are drawn. One can readily understand the apprehensions of the members of these clubs.
What is to be the position? Let us assume that a management committee is about to be elected. The Bill stipulates that there must be an elected committee of management. The members are about to elect their committee of management, but they do not seek to


inquire into the antecedents of every member who seeks to become a member of that committee. They would not dare to do it. There would be considerable trouble if they attempted it. The committee of management is appointed and, when it has been appointed, goes to the magistrate's court to seek registration. One magistrate immediately says, "There is Jack Jones"—[Laughter.] I only use this name by way of illustration

Mr. Ellis Smith: Yes—he is a magistrate.

Mr. Shinwell: The magistrate says, "I know that man has a bad character. Many years ago he committed an offence." It may well be that the magistrate is biased against Jack Jones—or whoever it may be and that is a very serious situation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) knows all about the law and legal matters, and I have no doubt that he, as a lawyer, and knowing something about justice, has endeavoured to define the man as being of
known character as proved to the court,
but that does not satisfy me a bit, and it certainly will not satisfy many of my constituents. They will still remain apprehensive of what is likely to arise as a result of this interference by the magistrates' bench.
The fact is that in this debate we are on the horns of a dilemma, and we had better face up to it. We all want to dispose of these vice clubs and bogus clubs. They are an abomination, and we would render every possible help to the Government in suppressing institutions of that kind if they can be called institutions. Our dilemma is this, and we are likely to be impaled on either horn. On the one hand, we want to dispose of this abomination but, on the other hand, we want to protect the interest of bona fide clubs. We in the North are concerned primarily with the working-men's clubs, because we hardly have any private clubs there.
7.45 p.m.
How are we to protect those clubs? The only way is to provide legislation that affords a measure of protection. What measure of protection is afforded?

The only measure of protection that could have been afforded was not to have included working-men's clubs in this legislation, but that has been done, and we are now seeking a very modest measure of protection by trying to prevent magistrates interfering unwarrantably and unnecessarily in the affairs of clubs.
If the magistrates are to be permitted to interrogate, to inquire, to investigate, to pry and to be nosey about the antecedents and associations of the members of committees of management, these clubs will be in a constant state of fear lest their registrations are not granted. That is not good enough. I have always had a great admiration for my right hon. and learned Friend, and for his industry in this assembly—and outside it, of course—but, in spite of what he has said, I beg him not to be too anxious to assist the Government in getting this part of the Bill through.
I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend knows as much about these bona fide clubs and their members as some of us do. We have to visit them often, for political and other reasons, and we have great affection for many of their members. Many of them work very hard in the day-time and require a bit of relaxation at night. There is hardly a club in my constituency that does not invite the ladies to come along. They have rooms for the ladies and all the amenities laid on. They have lecture rooms and they put on concerts. There are social gatherings. To suggest that a magistrate should be able to come along and ask whether Tom, Dick or Harry has at some time or other served a sentence and is, therefore, unfit to assist in the management is, in my view, just a piece of impudence.
Suppose that I were proposed as a member of a committee of management, and attention was directed to the fact that, many years ago, I served a prison sentence; not for picking pockets by the way, or indulging in bogus company promoting, but for political reasons—and not as a conscientious objector, either, in case there should be any mistake about that. It was because I was the leader of a strike. The magistrate would say, "You can't register this club; this person has served a prison sentence." That is not good enough.
The pharase
known character as proved to the court
is the definition of the legal trade, and I do not think that it is right. Before this Bill passes through its final stages—and it may happen in another place; valuable things sometimes do happen in another place—I hope that we shall get a definition that will not create apprehension in the minds of many of my constituents who belong to workingmen's clubs.

Major Sir Frank Markham: I join in the appeals made to the Government to give this part of the Bill and, indeed, other parts not at the moment under discussion, much more consideration. I have been a club member for nearly forty years. In the working-men's clubs in Buckinghamshire and in the Conservative clubs I have never known a case of drunkenness. I have never known a case of misdemeanour. I have never known anything to occur which warranted calling in the police. Yet, at the same time, I have known men serving on the committees of those clubs who at various times in their lives have been had up in court either for peccadilloes or for other things slightly more serious.
Under the Clause as it stands, if a committee member in one of these working-men's clubs or Conservative clubs has a past of that kind, which is usually more more known to the police than to his own fellow members, when the club comes up for registration the police can suddenly produce the evidence that there is on the committee—perhaps as chairman of the billiards committee, chairman of the finance committee or chairman of the dance committee—someone who is engaged in the management of the club, who fifteen years ago, may have been a deserter from the Army, may have bashed his sergeant-major in forgivable anger—something of that kind—and been up for assault and battery but who had since made good. A genuine club, unexceptionable in its value to the community as a whole, could be disbarred and struck off the register because there happened to be on the committee or as chairman of one of the sub-committees a man whose past was tainted with the odd black spot.
I agree with what the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said. I believe that the working-men's clubs, clubs which we call the recognised clubs, clubs with a decent social history behind them, clubs which have been faultless in observing their responsibilities to their members and to the public at large, should have been omitted from Part III altogether. There should have been a list of approved clubs and, once a club was on the list as an approved club—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not go beyond the Amendment we are now discussing.

Sir F. Markham: I return to my main point, Sir William. I hope that the Government will give much further consideration to the effect of this Clause on the recognised club and will bear in mind how such a club may be disbarred or struck off simply because there is someone on the committee who has a black spot in his past.

Mr. Michael Foot: I support what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). There is a danger here because the Government, having made a series of concessions on this part to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), may think that they have done enough and will not wish to look at the matter again. I assure the Government that there is real concern about this Clause among people engaged in managing clubs. The more one looks at the matter and examines the ordinary meaning of the words, particularly as laymen examine such words, the more legitimate the concern seems to be.
I take, first, the words
known character as proved to the court
In one sense, those words might be interpreted by magistrates as meaning merely that the charge had had to be proved in a court. Lawyers might say that that is not the meaning to be attached to them. There is nothing in the two words "known character" by themselves to give any estimate of what degree of crime would qualify a person


for exclusion from engaging in running a club. The more one looks at the words
known character as proved to the court
the more they seem on every count to constitute a loose and sloppy phrase. Since this is the core of the subsection, I hope that the Minister will reconsider it.
There is no doubt about the intention of the whole Committee as to what the subsection should achieve. It is designed solely to deal with criminals seeking to set up bogus clubs. That is what it is supposed to do. If that is the purpose, it is surely not beyond the wit of the Government and their legal advisers to use words which make that absolutely clear and which do not leave open any other interpretation.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not quite likely that in certain parts of the country some magistrates may include in their catalogue of persons guilty of moral turpitude those people who, for instance, take part in anti-Polaris demonstrations?

Mr. Foot: It is conceivable, but I am not applying to manage a club and, as far as I know, none of my friends is proposing to do so. My hon. Friend gave a list of examples of the way in which prejudice and supposition and a different approach to these matters could determine the decision. That is not what the Government intend. At any rate, it is not what they say they intend, and I am sure that in this case they are acting in good faith. By this Clause, they want to try to prevent real criminals from starting bogus clubs. That is all. But the words they use go very much further.
I hope, therefore, because he has told us that he wishes to carry out the intention which he described, and no more, that the Minister will be good enough to look at the matter again. The Clause has been hacked about a bit already and it is becoming quite difficult for anyone to understand. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take the Clause away and see whether he can bring in a much tighter Clause which does no more than fulfil the purpose which he himself defined as the purpose of this subsection.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I was very much indebted to the Government for the

changes which they made. I think that I was the first Member in Committee to raise all the objections and ideas which the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and others have raised. That is why I put my name to the Amendment in page 3, line 36, to leave out "associations or antecedents" in support of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). I have certain misgivings. I say this with some experience of having appeared in matters of this kind in other places. I think that the two Amendments which are now to be incorporated really meet the whole spirit of the debate, and I will explain why.
If a man has a background as an admirable strike-breaker or strike leader, even if he has had the misfortune to have ended up in the wrong place some years ago, the fact is that it comes before the bench. The practice in the courts is this. First, the case comes before the bench and the police have to make their inquiries. If in the course of those inquiries they elicit that there is concerned in the active management of the club a man who has one or two previous convictions, perhaps in the fairly distant past, they may nevertheless say—and they usually do—"We have no objection to the grant of this certificate".
The matter goes through and the bench does not inquire. On the other hand, one may have a bench which is very particular and which itself inquires into whether there has been any convictions in the background. If there has been, the bench may know about it, take it into account, and take another view. Alternatively, if a man has a conviction and the police introduce it, they must prove the
known character as proved to the court
properly.
I am bound to say that, if a man has a conviction which is sufficiently recent and sufficiently relevant to the conduct of management of a club, we must all agree that it is right in such circumstances that he should not play an active part in the management of a club.
8.0 p.m.
Therefore, I believe that we have now got what are the best words. I think the Government have gone as far as it is possible to go. If I had to sit down and draft this Clause, with the views which I hold, which are stringent in this


regard—that we should have proper proof against a man's character—I certainly could not better it. Indeed, I certainly did not have the ability to draft an Amendment as good as that of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, because if I had I should have drafted it.
I sought to exclude "associations or antecedents". The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) was dealing with the question of "associations or antecedents", as was also the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). Of course, I see that "associations or antecedents" would cover political associations, and antecedents might cover disreputable friends. They may be disreputable politically, socially or because they have had criminal associates, and there is very little doubt that those who originally drafted the Bill wanted to cover as well, if they could, not only the man but the associates of the man, and there was very good reason for it.
In the West End of London, if people are trying to operate a disreputable club, the man who makes the application is a man of good character. The secretary of the club is a man of good character, but the real promoter with the finance is a man of bad character who never comes up to the surface—the big fish that lies in the stagnant pool behind.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise what he is saying? He is dealing, primarily and fundamentally, with the private club, the sort of club where, sometimes, there are accusations of vice or bogus operations. He is not dealing with the bona fide working-men's club, to which I myself and some of my hon. Friends addressed ourselves.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I appreciate that, and I was going to deal with it, but, unfortunately, the Government would not have it in Committee. We put forward the view to them that all clubs that were prepared to accept Schedule 4 automatically go out of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and others sought to bring up the question of the working-man's club, and we quite naturally and rightly said, "All right, we want the Conservative clubs." We could also have Labour clubs, and, indeed, I have said that I wanted the

M.C.C., being a member, and all sporting clubs. Why not? They are just as good. I suggested at that time that we should take out all clubs which were prepared in their own rules to support the rules which line up with those for friendly societies.
The Government would not have that, and, as a result of that, we have to have here one Clause that covers them all. If that one Clause has to cover all, then it has to cover not only the workingman's clubs, but also the West End club—the "sleazy joint"—and one test has to be applied. I think it is right that we should have one test of character, which can be equally applicable to the man in the North of England who is engaged in running a perfectly respectable club, the same test being applied in London, where the man may not be so respectable, but where, none the less, the great majority are equally respectable. When we look at that test and see what it is, I believe that these words—
known character as proved to the court
in the Amendment which my right hon and learned Friend has put forward, will meet the case. I wanted to say that I do not believe that it will cause any hardship.
There is only one point that cannot be met, and it is best said. This was the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) when he said that it is true—and he is quite right—that something that has been in the cupboard for a long time might come out—an old conviction. On the whole, the police are pretty good about this. They do not bring up this sort of thing if they know that there is no fundamental objection. They do not usually do it unless there is some good reason, and I do not think they would do it. It might happen, but it would be on very rare occasions, and, on the whole, it certainly would not become grounds for an objection to a club of this kind. It is my considered view that the working-men's club and all the others will have no objection to the Clause as it is now to be amended.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 33, line 36, leave out "character, associations or antecedents" and insert—
known character as proved to the court."—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Clause 21—(OBJECTIONS TO AND CANCELLATIONS OF REGISTRATION, AND DISQUALIFICATION OF PREMISES.)

Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, in page 35, line 8, after "is", to insert "habitually".
I propose this Amendment because it seems to me that as the Clause to which it relates is at present drafted there is some room for obscurity. One of the objections which, under subsection (2), can be raised to the issue or renewal of a registration certificate is set out in paragraph (d), which reads:
that the club is conducted in a disorderly manner or for an unlawful purpose, or that the rules of the club are habitually disregarded as respects the admission of"—
that is the material part. What I seek to insert is the word "habitually" after the word "is", so that the relevant passage will read:
that the club is habitually conducted in a disorderly manner or for an unlawful purpose, or that he rules of the club are habitually disregarded"—
and so on. The purpose of my Amendment is this. There is an odd contrast between the absence of the word "habitually" in regard to the club being conducted in a disorderly manner, and the presence of the word "habitually" in the phrase dealing with the rules of the club being habitually diregarded. It seems to me curious, as a matter of drafting, that magistrates in future will be left guessing why it is that this contrast is introduced in this passage. It seems to me that the presence of word "habitually" in the first part of the paragraph is just as necessary and relevant as it is in the second part.
What we are arguing, when we are considering whether an objection should be sustained or not, is this question: whether is can be said that the club is habitually conducted in a disorderly manner. The fact that it may have been conducted on one evening in a disorderly manner six months ago is irrelevant. Equally, I should have thought that it was irrelevant that although the club may have been conducted in an orderly fashion for ten years there was a rather rowdy party going on at the moment when the objection was raised.
As I understand the language used, such an objection could be made however well the club had been run in the

past, and I would have thought that, quite clearly, the objections could arise if it could be said of the club that it was habitually conducted in a disorderly fashion, just as an objection could equally arise if it could be said that the rules of the club were habitually disregarded. The word "habitually", meaning repetition of habit and consistency of conduct in an undesirable sense, is surely as relevant when considering the disorderly fashion in which the club is conducted as when we are considering whether the rules are disregarded, and I am puzzled why this contrast is introduced.
I put forward the Amendment because I should like to know if there is any adequate reason for it; if not, I would press the Government to make the change. The learned Solicitor-General may or may not be able to meet me, but I think that if there is this odd change, the benches in the future will be left very puzzled when asking themselves whether the things they have to inquire into includes the question whether, at the moment when they are considering objections, there is some disorderly behaviour going on and entirely disregard the past and the probability of future conduct. That seems to me to be a very topsy-turvy approach. In asking themselves, when considering whether a club should be registered or not, whether the club is one in which in the normal way was run properly or not, we should equally consider the question whether this was a club the rules of which were in the normal way observed or not. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a matter of drafting to bring the two into line in order to obviate any unnecessary ambiguity and remove legitimate and genuine doubt on the part of many benches in the future who will have to decide this question.

The Solicitor-General: This could hardly be a narrower point of construction and so I will come immediately to try to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. The omission of the word "habitually" is advertent. It occurs in subsection (2, d) as a possible ground of objection,
that the rules of the club are habitually disregarded
because the rules can be disregarded once or they can be disregarded more


than once, and if they are disregarded more than a certain number of times they can be said to be habitually disregarded. That is to exclude their being disregarded on one particular isolated occasion.
Similarly paragraph (e) says:
the club premises…are habitually used for an unlawful purpose
because one could use the club premises on one occasion for an unlawful purpose or on two occasions, but that is not sufficient disqualification. They must be habitually so used, and so with regard to the other matters which are set out in that paragraph (e).
When we go back to the beginning of paragraph (d) a different consideration applies, because "conduct" in the sense

of the verb "to conduct" premises, conduct a club, carries the connotation of conduct for a period of time and, therefore, it contains within itself the very concept of "habitually". The club cannot be conducted in a disorderly manner or for an unlawful purpose on one occasion: it could be used on more than one occasion in that way. Therefore the Bill as drafted left out the word "habitually" because it would add, it was thought, nothing there.

That certainly answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I hope it satisfies him.

Question put, That "habitually" be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 194.

Division No. 207.]
AYES
[8.13 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Hoy, James H.
Redhead, E. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, William


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bence, Cyril
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blyton, William
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ross, William


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Boyden, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Short, Edward


Brockway, A. Fenner
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Ledger, Ron
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Lipton, Marcus
Skeffington, Arthur


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cronin, John
McCann, John
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Crossman, R. H. S.
MacColl, James
Snow, Julian


Darling, George
McLeavy, Frank
Sorensen, R. W.


Dodds, Norman
Mapp, Charles
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Marsh, Richard
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edelman, Maurice
Mason, Roy
Stones, William


Evans, Albert
Mendelson, J. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Fernyhough, E.
Milne, Edward J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Fletcher, Eric
Oliver, G. H.
Sylvester, George


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Oram, A. E.
Symonds, J. B.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Owen, Will
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ginsburg, David
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wainwright. Edwin


Gourlay, Harry
Parker, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Peart, Frederick
Willey, Frederick


Gunter, Ray
Pentland, Norman
Woof, Robert


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Popplewell, Ernest



Hannan, William
Proctor, W. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Randall, Harry
Mr. Diamond and Dr. King.


Holman, Percy
Rankin, John





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bourne-Arton, A.
Chichester-Clark, R.


Allason, James
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Boyle, Sir Edward
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Balniel, Lord
Braine, Bernard
Cleaver, Leonard


Barber, Anthony
Brooman-White, R.
Cole, Norman


Barlow, Sir John
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Barter, John
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Cordle, John


Batsford, Brian
Buck, Antony
Corfield, F. V.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bullard, Denys
Costain, A. P.


Bell, Ronald
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Coulson, J. M.


Berkeley, Humphry
Burden, F. A.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (SaffronWalden)
Critchley, Julian


Bidgood, John C.
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Biggs-Davison, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Cunningham, Knox


Black, Sir Cyril
Cary, sir Robert
Curran, Charles


Bossom, Clive
Channon, H. P. G.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry




Deedes, W. F.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Delargy, Hugh
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pym, Francis


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, James


Doughty, Charles
Jackson, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


du Cann, Edward
James, David
Rees, Hugh


Eden, John
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Renton, David


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Ridsdale, Julian


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kirk, Peter
Robertson, Sir David


Errington, Sir Eric
Kitson, Timothy
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leather, E. H. C.
Seymour, Leslie


Finlay, Graeme
Leburn, Gilmour
Shaw, M.


Fisher, Nigel
Lilley, F. J. P.
Shepherd, William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lindsay, Martin
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gammans, Lady
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Gardner, Edward
Loveys, Walter H.
Smithers, Peter


Gibson-Watt, David
McAdden, Stephen
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Glover, Sir Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Stevens, Geoffrey


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McLaren, Martin
Stodart, J. A


Godber, J. B.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Goodhart, Philip
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Goodhew, Victor
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tapsell, Peter


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Marshall, Douglas
Temple, John M.


Green, Alan
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Grimond, J.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Stratton
Vane, W. M. F.


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Morrison, John
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nabarro, Gerald
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W).


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Walder, David


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Noble, Michael
Walker, Peter


Hastings, Stephen
Nugent, Sir Richard
Ward, Dame Irene


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Whitelaw, William


Hendry, Forbes
Partridge, E.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hiley, Joseph
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon Charles (Luton)
Peel, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Percival, Ian
Wise, A. R.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Holland, Philip
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Woollam, John


Holt, Arthur
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Worsley, Marcus


Hopkins, Alan
Pitman, I. J.



Hornby, R. P.
Pott, Percivall
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Prior, J. M. L.
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison and


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 35, line 16, after "displays" to insert:
or for any purpose conducive to the corruption of public morals".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think that it would be convenient for the House also to discuss the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), to Clause 28, in page 42, line 33, at the end to insert:
(a) indecent displays shall be deemed to mean such displays as tend to deprave and corrupt members of the public generally.

Mr. Fletcher: I entirely agree that it would be convenient to discuss also the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) which you have mentioned, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Though it does not arise until we reach Clause 28, it is an attempt to define the words "indecent displays" by saying that they shall be deemed to

mean such displays as tend to deprave and corrupt members of the public generally.
I should, perhaps, also discuss another related Amendment which is not selected, but which deals with the same topic. It is the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), in page 35, line 16, after "displays" to insert:
including strip-tease, or displays of nudity or near nudity".
We had considerable discussion in Committee on this subject which was not entirely satisfactory or conclusive. One of the reasons why it was not conclusive was no fault of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, because I think that he was under a handicap at the time for the reason that there was some obscurity in the law, as he pointed out, because an important case was then under consideration by the House of


Lords. That case has now been decided in a very important, perhaps epoch-making decision by their Lordships. Therefore, the position has radically changed and I think that this requires the House to reconsider the subject.
The Clause contains the grounds on which objections can be raised to the registration or reregistration or disqualification of club premises. It is notorious that in recent years not only in the West End of London, but in certain other cities, there has been a considerable increase in the kind of club that caters for displays of nudity, near-nudity or strip-tease. There has been a general decline in the standards of entertainment of this kind over recent years which gives rise to a great deal of public concern. As the hon. Member for Wimbledon pointed out in Committee it is no exaggeration to say that some of these entertainments are degrading in the extreme, that they are calculated to deprave, that they deliberately appeal to unhealthy and undesirable instincts, and that they do a good deal to defame our national life.
It may or may not be a coincidence that in recent years there has been an increase in sex crimes, but it is certainly the fact that we should take the opportunity presented by the Bill to do whatever we can to express our disapproval of this very regrettable and widely advertised increase in our cities of this kind of unhealthy, depraved, debased, and corrupting so-called entertainment. I do not think that the Government would disagree with us in the objectives we are trying to reach. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) and I have tabled the Amendment because we feel that it is most important that public attention should be drawn to the subject. It is important that Parliament should express an opinion on the matter am: I think that we can make a substantial improvement in the Bill if the Amendment is accepted.
I turn now to the rather technical reasons why I think that these words are called for. It will be noticed that as the Bill at present stands objection can be made on the ground that the premises
are habitually used for an unlawful purpose, or for indecent displays".

The draftsmen have thought it necessary to use the specific phrase "for indecent displays". They did not regard it as adequate merely for an objector to point out that the club premises were used for "an unlawful purpose"; another ground of objection is an indecent display. One must, therefore, assume from the use of those phrases that an indecent display is not necessarily in the eyes of the draftsman unlawful.
8.30 p.m.
When we sought, in Committee, to be more specific and make it a precise ground of objection that the premises were used for strip-tease, or nudity, or near-nudity the Minister of State resisted our Amendment on two grounds. First, he said that it would be difficult to define "near-nudity" and "strip-tease". He also suggested, I thought, that the Amendment was unnecessary. He observed that what we wanted to stop was indecency, and he said that he was advised that indecency was a word which could be defined. As the Bill stands, there is no definition of it, but the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet would itself provide a definition and would, in my opinion, be better than nothing.
I ought to observe that the hon. Gentleman opposed our Amendment on grounds which I found very difficult to follow, but the Minister pointed out—he was quite right in doing so—that at that time the common law was uncertain, far from clear, obscure. Fortunately, such obscurity as existed at the time that we were discussing the matter in Committee has to a large extent now been removed by a decision in the House of Lords, to which I will now turn.
In doing so, I would point out that the words of this Amendment are taken deliberately from the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Shaw v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, reported in The Times of 5th May. The case arose out of a publication entitled The Ladies' Directory, to which a certain amount of public attention was given. The point at issue was whether or not there existed at common law an indictable offence for conspiring to corrupt public morals. The House of Lords, in its judicial capacity, decided


by a majority of four to one that there was such an offence at common law. It is for that reason that I have adopted those words in this Amendment.
I should just observe that although, of course, it is now recognised that at common law there is a punishable criminal offence, conspiracy to corrupt public morals, a "conspiracy" involves the action of at least two persons. An applicant for registration of a club may be an individual, and it may be his object to corrupt public morals, but he might not be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to corrupt public morals if he acted alone.
Therefore, it seems very important that we should provide that one of the grounds of objection to the registration of club premises is that they would be used for the corruption of public morals, because that would catch the case of an individual applicant, an individual proprietor.
As Lord Tucker observed in his judgment:
It had long been accepted that there were some conspiracies which were criminal, although the acts agreed to be done were not per se criminal or tortious if done by individuals. Assuming that the corruption of public morals by the act of an individual might not he criminal or tortious, did it follow that a conspiracy by two or more persons to that end was not indictable?
Lord Tucker answered that question in the affirmative.
What is even more significant is that Lord Reid, in his dissenting judgment—this is why it is so important for Parliament to observe what he said—said:
Notoriously, there were wide differences of opinion today as to how far the law ought to punish immoral acts which were not done in the face of the public. Parliament was the proper, and the only proper, place to settle that.
That is why Lord Reid, although he dissented from the decision of his colleagues as to what the law was, recognised that this House is the place to decide what the law should be, and that is why I think that we should now legislate in this sense.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I should point out that what Lord Reid was saying was that Parliament ought to stipulate specific instances, and he objected to the wide use of the phrase

"conspiracy to corrupt public morals", although, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, he was in a minority of one in that respect. Lord Reid was saying that Parliament laid down that this or that particular act is prohibited.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, because Lord Reid was in a minority and the judgment of the majority is the law of the land. I was calling in aid what Lord Reid said in order to point out that this is the concern of Parliament. I agree with what Lord Reid said in this case—that Parliament should say that such-and-such acts are contrary to public morals. If Parliament provides that something is contrary to public morals it should say so in an Act of Parliament and should not leave it to the judiciary to decide.
Lord Simonds pointed out that it has always been the function of the courts of this land to act as custos morum of the people, and that the law courts have a residual power, where no Statute has yet intervened, to supersede the common law, to superintend those offences which are prejudicial to the public welfare. It seems to me that here we have a clear case in which there is a body of public opinion prepared to support the exercise by this House of one of its fundamental obligations. Parliament should not lag behind the judiciary in exercising the function of custos morum, as Lord Simonds said.
Therefore, although the Bill as it stands enables an objector to say that premises are used for an unlawful purpose, or for an indecent display, there are all these other vicious clubs formed expressly for the purpose of putting on shows involving nudity, sometimes in conditions of blatant lewdness and vulgarity, accompanied by advertisements which appeal to the basest tastes.
I hope that the House will take the view that we should make the law on the subject abundantly clear, by inserting words which would enable the courts to refuse registration or reregistration of any premises which, in their opinion, were being used for the purpose of "corrupting public morals". That phrase is now enshrined in the law of the land by the highest court in the land. It will be open for any jury in any particular case to


form a decision as to whether the offence has been committed or not. It is a phrase which, I agree, is far easier for a jury to apply than to attempt a definition of nudity or striptease. It supplies a simple convenient and objective test, and I believe that it would be the wish of very large sections of the community that this Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. John Cordle: I rise strongly to support the Amendment. I believe that strip-tease clubs are wrong. I was very surprised to learn today that in the Metropolitan area there are 14 such clubs in existence. I am very surprised also to learn that in the provincial towns there are numbers more and that the Home Office is not prepared to list the clubs which are acting in this way and providing what I would term "base entertainment."
Strip-tease clubs are a blot on our national morals and an offence to all decent citizens. Their existence can only bring us into disgrace and disrepute at home and abroad. I go so far as to say that the wind of change in our affluent society has brought in its wake a gust of lust which this country has never seen before. Our bookstalls and cinema screens are shameless and are sure proof of the sickness that is gripping us today. More sex crimes of every description before the courts, full prisons, and promiscuity and immoral behaviour are largely the result of providing such places as strip-tease clubs.
It was on my way back to the House that I made it my business to go into one of these places, not long ago. I paid my 7s. 6d. and was told that my ticket would enable me to go there again for another seven days. I was not asked who had sponsored me nor whether I had any connection with the club, which was then putting on its show. The place was dirty and sordid. A tape recorder was playing and I suppose that there were 30 to 35 men in the club, reasonably dressed and apparently fairly decent types, looking at a show which I thought was a disgrace.
In succession, young girls in their late 'teens were stripping their garments from their bodies and doing uninhibited things. The men did not seem to be really enamoured by it and one or two of them

left even before half an hour. I stayed about that time and I was appalled to think that this country had something which I had seen only before the war in places like Montparnasse and Montmartre.
As the father of seven children, who could be exposed to these moral dangers by finding their way into one of these clubs, I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Cole: We need not argue about the purpose which the whole House has in mind when dealing with this Amendment. There can be few hon. Members who would support this kind of thing, and I would pay tribute to their courage if they did. However, I am not certain that we are not laying up trouble for the future because of the way that the Amendment is worded.
In a recent case in London, a magistrate said, when finding an accused person guilty, that if the performers in respect of whose performance the accused was being charged had not done certain actions, he would have had no recourse in law to find them guilty. That may have been before the Shaw judgment, when there was no definition of indecency, but what he meant was that the actual exhibition of the male or female body did not constitute indecency at law. I doubt whether it will if the Amendment is accepted.
8.45 p.m.
We always fall over backwards to protect a person who is accused, whatever he is accused of, and the State is, as it were, always at fault, and must prove the person guilty. Lawyers will be involved in long arguments about the meaning of
for any purpose conducive to the corruption of public morals
and, indeed, over the meaning of
such displays as tend to corrupt and deprave the public generally.
What would happen to a charge brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions if a witness said: "I have been to these shows for twelve or fifteen years. I am a good father and I have brought up five or seven children. I am well respected in the neighbourhood, and I am far from being corrupt or depraved"? I cannot see why the Government, not only in this Bill but in many Bills, are


frightened of being specific. I am not a young man. I have seen this happen many times. The Government lay up far more trouble for themselves by a generality of expression than by being specific. The Government might inadvertently exclude one or two cases if they were specific, but, on the other hand, they would achieve the object of this legislation.
We are not talking about strip-tease, or nudity, or near-nudity. We are talking about something more distant which will be conducive to the corruption of public morals. I do not know what that means, because, as was said several times when we were dealing with obscene publications, what corrupts one person does not corrupt another, and what depraves one person does not deprave another. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) consider that he is depraved for having been to the show to which he referred?
If I were a proprietor of one of these clubs, I would laugh. I would get a good Queen's counsel on my side the next time I was picked up, having made £25,000 in six months. He would make a good case for me and I would get a good run for my money. I do not agree that it is impossible to define "striptease". Any 25 people in the West End of London could give an appropriate definition. There would not be any difficulty in defining it, and I am not being innocent in saying that.
A display of nudity surely means a display of nudity; nothing more, and nothing less. I cannot see why we must take this roundabout way of trying to include it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) fought this in Committee upstairs on a specific definition and I imagine that is why the Amendment in his name has not been called tonight. I am sorry about that, because the people who run these shows will take much more notice of a warning in black and white than of a vague vague expression such as
for any purpose conducive to the corruption of public morals
One of these clubs has 40,000 members. Are all those people corrupt or depraved, or do they have to see a certain number of shows before they reach that stage? It is said that these displays

tend to deprave and corrupt people. They will corrupt a youngster of 18, but will they corrupt someone of 60 who has spent a lot of his life at Montparnasse and similar places? That is how I should argue, and the magistrate would have no option but to administer the law as it is laid down in the Act, not as it is interpreted by my right hon. Friend. The Act makes no reference to strip-tease or other practices, but merely refers to something which tends to corrupt or deprave.
I hope that we have not seen the end of this. I hope that we shall put something into this Clause to make it clear beyond all peradventure to the people who are making tainted money exactly what we are after, instead of trying to define something which will be the subject of arguments of academic interest to lawyers. Let us put in plain, simple, unvarnished, if necessary Anglo-Saxon, language what we are after, and exactly what we intend to legislate for.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is not often that I disagree with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) on matters of this kind, but on this occasion I feel that he has completely misconceived what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) seeks to do, and the history behind the words which he seeks to insert. Those words are embodied in the law, and if they are inserted the courts will in future be in a position to interpret them.

Mr. Cole: Will the right hon. Member bear in mind that judges will also know that these words sprang from a prosecution of quite a different kind—concerning the publication of a directory—and if he would care to judge between that case and a strip-tease case he will find no basis for doing so in these words?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member may be right about that. We shall hear what the Solicitor-General has to say. I believe that the courts will put on these words a wider interpretation than that which the hon. Member seeks to put on them.
The Clause deals with objections to and cancellations of registration, and the disqualification of premises, and the subsection with which we are dealing gives, as one reason for disqualification, the fact that premises are used for indecent


displays. When we dealt with this matte: in Committee the Minister of State expressed the general view that those words were sufficiently descriptive to cover the case with which many hon. Members sought to deal. We cannot say whether this will be so until the courts have to interpret the subsection. But many hon. Members in Committee felt—and now the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) and his hon. Friends who have put their names to his Amendment feel—that some further words could be included with advantage. The question is, what they should be.
I formed the view that the words proposed in the hon. Member's Amendment were already covered, and that his Amendment was, therefore, redundant. Nevertheless, in view of an action which has recently been decided in another place, it would be useful if the Government would put in such words as have been there judicially noticed and which will from now on have meaning in law. That is why my hon. Friend moved his Amendment, which I hope the Government will accept.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) had to say. He has more courage than I have. I would not have the courage to go to one of those places. But we have all read about them. I should say that they are very boring and not the kind of place to which one would go for entertainment, or to spend money on an evening out. Nevertheless, they are there, and some people apparently find them places which are worth resorting to.
One of the reasons why the Bill was introduced was that it was felt by the Government that this type of sordid club had to be dealt with. Part III of the Bill does not seek to deal with the ordinary, decent working-man's club or any such club. It is designed—though it has to bite on all clubs to do so—to deal with the kind of club at which this subsection is aimed. I should like to see it strengthened, if necessary. I do not want to see it weakened. We should use the opportunity afforded by the introduction of the Bill to tighten up the law in the way in which I think that everybody is anxious that it should be.

The Solicitor-General: The problem with which we are concerned has been very well outlined in the speeches which have been made. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) has correctly broadened the issue by saying that Part III of the Bill is designed to deal with undesirable clubs of various sorts, including the kind which we have been canvassing on this Amendment, which we believe have been operating in London particularly, and, for all I know, in other large cities as well.
May I, first, give the existing law and the present position, then what the Bill does and then what the Amendment seeks to do. I am told that strip-tease clubs in London are of two sorts. The first includes such things as girls stripping completely and going through various obscene motions or gestures. As was said by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) they appear, if that is the correct description, to pander to some of the basest instincts to which it would be possible to appeal.
In recent months prosecutions under the existing common law have been brought against the proprietors of five clubs of this kind. When I say five, we must relate that to the figure given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) that so far as we know, there are about 14 clubs which have been operating in London. Five were prosecuted and the head of the prosecution was keeping a disorderly house. In all five cases there were convictions and substantial fines were imposed. I believe that the most recent one was a fine of £5,000 with a month in which to pay or in default of payment, imprisonment for twelve months.
In the second sort of strip-tease club, I am told that the performance is relatively innocuous, the usual action being that the girl strips down as far as a G-string. I have asked what is a G-string and, so far, nobody has told me.

Mr. W. R. Williams: It must be something to do with a violin.

The Solicitor-General: I think that we are in a different sphere of artistry from the one which occurs to the hon. Gentleman.
The dancing is of rather poor quality. But in the majority of those cases the clubs are not registered clubs at all. In fact, they are not really clubs. Anyone can obtain entry by paying at the door, even though he may go through the formality of filling in a form of application for membership. I suspect that that was the type of establishment in which my hon. Friend found himself. In London and most of the urban areas, but not the country as a whole, it is an offence to keep a house for public dancing or music, or other public entertainment of a like kind, without a licence from the London County Council, or, elsewhere, from the local authority or justices.
9.0 p.m.
In cases such as I have described where, although the premises are called clubs, it is possible for anyone to gain admission on the spot—in other words, membership is a mere formality—it is arguable that the public is effectively admitted. The clubs are then carried on illegally. I am also told that the proprietors of five strip-tease clubs of the second kind have been convicted recently for keeping houses for public music and dancing without a licence. In some cases, I am told, there will be appeals. In one case the charge was dismissed, but the prosecution is appealing. Proceedings are pending in the case of four other of those so-called clubs.
I give the House that information so that it can see that the existing law is by no means powerless to deal with these establishments when it is set in motion, but I ask the House to look at the Bill, because it goes very much further. What the Bill says is that it is a ground of objection that the club premises
are habitually used for an unlawful purpose, or for indecent displays",
so any indecent display in a club of this description is a ground of objection. From the description which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch gave at first hand, and which the hon. Member for Islington, East gave, I suspect, at secondhand, it would seem that what was described fell clearly within these words—that they were indecent displays and, therefore, the Bill would cover them.

Mr. Cole: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to define to the

House what he means by "an indecent display"? If a display up to a certain stage is not indecent, are we to have degrees of indecency?

The Solicitor-General: I shall not try to define it; in fact, I shall quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) when he tries to define it, because it is the sort of thing which is better left to a bench of magistrates to define. They know what an indecent display is. Of course there are degrees of indecency, but at a certain point it becomes an indecent display of which the law should take cognizance, and it is very much better left in that way.

Mr. Julian Snow: I may have missed the point. The Solicitor-General has described the situation as it appears to be in the Metropolitan area and we would like to know whether the problem has been examined as it is now in the provinces.

The Solicitor-General: I mentioned that it is an offence in the provinces, in most urban areas, to keep a house for public dancing or music or other public entertainment of a like kind without a licence, in the case of places outside London, granted by a local authority.

Mr. Snow: What is the size of the problem?

The Solicitor-General: That I cannot say. I will see whether there is information in the hands of the Home Office. I believe that there is not. So far as I know, the problem is mainly a Metropolitan one.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: It is screaming out for attention.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Mr. Ellis Smithindicated dissent.

The Solicitor-General: I am glad to find that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) bears out my impression. I am firmly of the opinion that there is no such problem in the area I represent, on Tees-side.
However, I emphasise that the proposal in the Bill extends to all areas. It is, therefore, a strengthening of the law and it is ubiquitous. If there is an indecent display in a club, wherever it is, that is a ground of objection. It would seem to me that all the objectionable


entertainments that have been described to us, and which undoubtedly constitute a grave problem, will be covered, in so far as they are not covered by the existing common law, by the specific words in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Islington, East drew attention to the fact that we have used both the general phrase that the club premises are "habitually used for an unlawful purpose" and also the specific phrase that might well be included in it, "or for indecent displays" That is perfectly correct. Obviously, there is a large area of overlap, but we thought it right specifically to make habitual indecent displays a ground of objection, in case it could be argued that certain indecent displays were not in the existing state of the law unlawful. At least, it crystallises for the justices the precise ground of objection that they have to consider.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Can my right hon. and learned Friend deal with this one point, which goes to the heart of the question of whether amendment is necessary? He has outlined the unlawful purpose, and that seems clear enough. In what circumstances could there be an indecent display which was not also an unlawful purpose? To put it another way, could there be an indecent display which could be relied upon which was not one which would sustain a conviction for a disorderly house?

The Solicitor-General: I think that there might be such circumstances, but, with respect, I do not propose to argue the matter. What we wanted by introducing these words "or for indecent displays" was to avoid the difficulties of the further argument of whether there is an unlawful purpose.
There is also the consideration that keeping a disorderly house is the sort of offence which is tryable only on indictment and where it requires a fairly careful direction from a judge to the jury, whereas an ordinary intelligent bench of magistrates could perfectly well, in our view, decide whether there was an indecent display in the club premises on the evidence produced to them without going into these further recondite circumstances.
That brings me to the Amendment, which was moved so clearly by the hon.

Member for Islington, East. As the hon. Member said, the formula which he puts forward is that derived from the recent case in the House of Lords of Shaw v. the Director of Public Prosecutions. In other words, the hon. Member says that it shall be a ground of objection that the premises are habitually used for
any purpose conducive to the corruption of public morals".
It is true that the House of Lords has recently decided that case, in which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet argued the case for the appellant My hon. Friend argued the case with great ability, an ability which earned the rare tribute of a compliment from the learned Law Lord on the Woolsack at the time. That case laid down that a conspiracy to corrupt public morals was an indictable offence at the common law.
That decision has not escaped criticism. The ground of criticism generally is that it is too vague an offence. I by no means agree with that criticism. I think that the decision was a valuable one. It is a valuable instrument of last resort in the hands of those charged with the maintenance of public order. But it is not—I readily agree with the critics in this respect—an instrument to be used indiscriminately.
Therefore, I would say that a conspiracy to corrupt public morals is an offence which ought only to be used as an instrument of last resort in cases where it was doubtful whether a conviction could be obtained for any other offence where the areas of offence were, to some extent, coincident and, in addition, that it is essentially the type of offence which requires the most careful direction by the learned judge to the jury concerned.
Therefore, I disagree with the Amendment, although I fully understand the purpose for which it was tabled. It seeks to extend that concept from being a weapon of last resort and from an area where the offence would be triable on indictment by judge and jury to where it is a concept which must be considered by a bench of magistrates in relation to the registration of a club. That also crystalises the objection which I have to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, which seeks to define indecency in terms of corruption of public morals.
I submit to the House that, although the existing law is by no means powerless to deal with the mischief with which we are concerned, the Bill goes considerably further and is a powerful instrument of control. The Amendment, for the reasons I have stated, is not desirable in this context. It may ultimately be available, because I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which displays put on which were conducive to the corruption of public morals would not have been the subject of an antecedent agreement between, say, the proprietor and the artist or whoever it was.
In that case, it would, if necessary, be indictable before a judge and jury as a common law conspiracy. Once that happened, it would follow that the club premises were being habitually used for an unlawful purpose. In that case, although it would come in as a weapon of last resort it would have come in via the judge and jury and after a careful review of the law and the evidence.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The argument the Solicitor-General is now using, which I clearly take, would still be effective if these words were included. It does not mean that every time the subsection is invoked the whole of it has to be invoked. These are alternatives.

The Solicitor-General: The objection to that is this. First, it would be open to any objector to say that the display or conduct was
conducive to the corruption of public morals".
Nothing could stop him using that as a weapon of first resort rather than as a weapon of last resort. Secondly, he could say it to a bench magistrates without having prosecuted on indictment before a judge and jury. In a serious case it would still be possible to prosecute before a judge and jury and, on a conviction, to satisfy the magistrates that the club premises had, indeed, been habitually used for an unlawful purpose.
I cannot conceive of any habitual use of premises for a purpose
conducive to the corruption of public morals
which would not be an indecent display in this sphere. I can conceive of many acts which would be conducive to the corruption of public morals but would

not be indecent displays, but in this sphere of clubs and displays in clubs I cannot think of any. Therefore, in that respect the words are unnecessary. For all those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied that it is not necessary to press his Amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Sir C. Black: The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) for having given us the opportunity to discuss this most important matter; and also, if I may say so with respect, to my right hon. and learned Friend for his careful and clear exposition of the law as it would stand if these words were written into the Bill. For the layman, this is, indeed, a complex, technical and complicated matter, and I suppose that those of us who have not had orthodox legal training find ourselves in some difficulty in deciding what is the right course to adopt.
I find myself still favourable to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, on the grounds that I am very much inclined to support any Amendment that would have the effect of strengthening the law, even though it be the case that to write the words of the Amendment into the Bill might not add very much to what is already there. My right hon. and learned Friend said that successful prosecutions under the criminal law had recently been brought in several cases in respect of the kind of entertainment that we have been discussing, but I sought to amend and strengthen the Bill in Commitee for the very reason that I thought that the criminal law as defined by the lawyers was not really adequate to the existing situation.
I want to refer to some words used by a most experienced lawyer, chairman of quarter sessions, in the charge that he gave to the jury in a recent case over which he presided. He is reported as saying:
Performances in the nude were not the beginning and end of the matter. If that was all that was going on the accused should be acquitted.
If that exposition of the law by a well-known and experienced lawyer is the correct one, I believe that the law as it is at present does not go nearly far enough and is by no means adequately effective to deal with the kind of evil with which


this House is concerned and with the kind of performance that has been described this evening by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle).
In those same legal proceedings, the prosecuting counsel also said something that to me is illuminating and which, I think, also indicates the unsatisfactory and ineffective state of the law. These are the words of another experienced and able lawyer employed in the case:
You have got to be satisfied, looking at this matter without prejudice one way or the other and as judges of fact, that the evidence has satisfied you beyond reasonable doubt that what was going on in these premises was obscene, lewd, lascivious, debauching and wholly disgusting.
It is therefore quite clear that under that definition a performance has to be disgusting to a very high degree, indeed, before the law—as defined, at any rate, by this lawyer—is effective to deal with it—

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is not the test in the Bill. The test in the Bill is the simple one of indecency.

Mr. Cole: And as to definition or lack of it, if what the learned chairman of quarter sessions said is true, and I have no reason to believe that it was not, nothing about which he was talking would constitute an indent display.

Sir C. Black: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. I appreciate that the Bill as it stands now represents some advance upon the legal position as defined in the quotations I have given. I take it that what we are considering is whether the Bill goes sufficiently far to deal with the kind of entertainment which which, I imagine, all hon. and right hon. Members wish to deal effectively.
Here, of course, those of us who are laymen are in difficulty in deciding what is the precise meaning and effect of particular words and phrases. I approach the matter from a simple point of view. It is difficult to believe that any harm could in any circumstances be done by the addition to the Bill of the words in the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, East, but I can see that those words might in certain circumstances strengthen the purpose

of the Bill and, therefore, make it more effective in dealing with the kind of evil with which the House is anxious to deal, an evil which, so it seems from all the evidence, is growing not only in the Metropolitan area but in other parts of the country.
I admit that a better formula can, perhaps, be found than the formula in the Amendment we are discussing. If my right hon. and learned Friend were prepared to say that he is content to look at the matter further in the light of the strong expressions of opinion made in the House today with a view to considering how the Bill can be further strengthened, I for my part should be satisfied to leave the matter there with that assurance. However, I gather from what he has said that he is entirely satisfied that the Bill is effective as it stands now. If that be so, I should be inclined to give my support to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, East.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The House is united in wishing to stamp out these degrading displays. We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) for his courage and good sense today in coming to the House and speaking as he did. We are indebted also to the learned Solicitor-General for the careful way in which he led us through the difficulties of phrasing this type of prohibition.
I support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) who, I thought, completely made out the case for the inclusion of the phrase
or for any purpose conducive to the corruption of public morals".
The expression "unlawful purpose" which occurs a few words earlier in the subsection is a general expression covering an unspecified number of infractions of the general law. The same virtue of being a general description covering an unspecified but quite definite group of offences against public morals is possessed by the phrase which my hon. Friend proposes in his Amendment. I suggest that if we were to combine the two general phrases "unlawful purpose" and
or for any purpose conducive to the corruption of public morals


we should be on safer ground in leading the courts in their duty of dealing with this class of offence. In fact, here I run counter to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) and possibly to some of my hon. Friends. I would not be averse to seeing the disappearance of the specific phrase "indecent display", because I suspect—and I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), an unusual occurrence in Committee and in this House on this Bill, with what he implied in his Amendment—that this phrase, was dragged in in order to meet the emotional outburst on the specific subject of strip-tease. Like every other hon. Member, I condemn this kind of offensive activity, but that is not the only kind of offensive activity which we ought to try to deal with in this Clause.
I think the only safe way is to keep to general phrases which, nevertheless, can be and will be interpreted in the courts, whether by magistrates or otherwise, to cover every kind of unlawful purpose within the meaning of the Clause, or, indeed, and this perhaps does no more than explain the phrase "unlawful purpose", or run parallel to its meaning—within the meaning of the phrase "conducive to the corruption of public morals." Once we try to specify the kind of offence with which this Clause is supposed to deal by implying the exclusion of other offences, it may make it possible in the courts to let off people who clearly are guilty of infractions of the spirit of this Clause.
We should keep to what I take to be the traditional, well-tried method of expressing the intentions of the law in this country by using common-sense general definitive phrases like "unlawful purposes" or "conducive to the corruption of public morals." Then the courts cannot be in any danger of not being able to deal with any and every offence that comes within these broad general definitions.

Mr. E. Fletcher: May I, with the leave of the House, say that I listened very carefully to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said? I think that this debate has served a useful purpose, and I was impressed by his argument that these words may not add a great deal to the strength of the Clause as drafted. I think the whole House will

have learned with considerable satisfaction that, even as the law stands at present, a number of prosecutions have been launched against strip-tease clubs in London. I hope that the Bill as drafted will very considerably strengthen the hand of the Home Office in this respect. It is the desire of all of us that every possible step should be taken to stamp out this insidious evil. In view of what the learned Solicitor-General has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 36, line 13, to leave out "twenty-eight" and to insert "forty-two".
This is a very simple and straightforward Amendment with which I can deal extremely briefly. Under the subsection to which this Amendment is offered, when an alteration is made in the rules of a club registered in respect of any premises notice has to be given within 28 days by the secretary. If it is not given within that period of time, the secretary would be liable to a fine not exceeding £10.
9.30 p.m.
The next Amendment on the Notice Paper, which is to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, has exactly the same purpose—to alter "twenty-eight" to "forty-two" as the time required for notice of a change in the particulars of a club. That is what I and others would wish to do in this instance. I, for one, cannot see the difference between notice having to be given when there are changes made in the particulars of the club, and notice having to be given when there are changes in the rules of the club; at least, although there is a difference, it is not a very great one. If presently, the Minister of State is to suggest to the House that we make it 42 days for particulars I see no reason why my Amendment, which would make a like period of time applicable to rules, should not be acceptable.
In Committee, a suggestion was raised by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and it was then said that during the summer months, when people are away on holiday, 28 days might not be enough, and through sheer inadvertence, or because at that time committees do not meet as often as they otherwise do, 28 days might


elapse and the club secretary inadvertently lay himself open to a fine of £10. That is not as much as £50, which is the penalty prescribed in Clause 23, to which we shall be directing our attention presently, but, nevertheless, £10 to some clubs is a considerable sum, and certainly could be to a club secretary, for whom, indeed, it could be quite a lot.
Therefore, I see no reason why, if only for tidiness, the right hon. Gentleman should not accept my Amendment. An extra fortnight makes little or no difference to the Home Office, but it could make all the difference to a local club.

Mr. Vosper: As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the Bill imposes two requirements on clubs, one that they should notify the justices of alterations in the rules and the other that they should notify them about alterations in the clubs themselves. The Bill as published gave a time limit of 21 days in both instances. In Committee, I agreed that this time limit should be extended to 28 days in both instances.
In Committee, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) pressed me to go even further in the question of the time required to notify alterations in the clubs themselves, and he argued that there should be a longer time allowed for the secretary to notify a change in the particulars of the club than changes in the rules themselves. He said:
Rules are not altered except by a deliberate act, and a club should he in a position to notify a change in rules within a period shorter than that required for notification of particulars of the club."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 20th April, 1961; c. 1195.]
As a result of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention I have tabled an Amendment, which we are just about to take, to increase the time to 42 days, so I have entirely met the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point that there should be a difference between the two provisions. Now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) wants me to equalise them once again. I find myself in some difficulty, therefore, in accepting his Amendment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Why?

Amendment negatived.

Clause 23.—(MAINTENANCE OF REGISTER, AND PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION, ETC.)

Amendment made: In page 38, line 24, leave out "twenty-eight" and insert "forty-two".—[Mr. Vosper.]

Clause 25.—(INSPECTION OF PREMISES BEFORE FIRST REGISTRATION.)

Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, in page 40, line 1, to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
(1) Where a club applies for the issue of a registration certificate in respect of any premises, any officer of the local authority authorised in writing by that authority may, on giving not less than forty-eight hours' notice to the person signing the application and, if the premises are not occupied by the club, to the occupier, enter and inspect the premises at any reasonable time on such day, not being more than fourteen days after the making of the application, as may be specified in the notice.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if the following Amendments were also discussed:
In line 2, leave out from "premises" to "may" in line 3 and insert:
an officer of the local authority authorised in writing by that authority".
In line 9, leave out from "and" to "shall" in line 10 and insert:
a constable authorised in writing by the chief officer of police".
In line 11, at end insert:
but a chief officer of police shall not so authorise a constable unless in his opinion special reasons exist making it necessary that the premises should be inspected on behalf of the police authority".
In line 11, at end insert:
and such right shall be exercisable additionally in respect of an application for the renewal of a registration certificate
In line 12, leave out "a constable or" and insert "an".
In line 15, leave out from "the" to end.
In line 25, at end insert:
(5) Nothing in this section shall authorise a constable to enter and inspect the club premises of any working-men's club (that is to say, a club which is, as regards its purposes, qualified for registration as a workingmen's club under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and is a registered society within the meaning of that Act or of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893).


If I may make the matter plain, I would, if so desired, thereafter call for a Division only the Amendment in page 40, line 2, and the Amendment in page 40, line 25. I think that covers the ground.

Sir F. Soskice: This series of Amendments deals with a matter of considerable importance affecting clubs, because it deals with a question of police entry into clubs for the purpose of inspection. I should remind the House at once that the Bill contains two separate provisions about police entry. One is to be found in Clause 26. That is a provision for police entry on a justices' warrant in the event of there being reason to suppose that there is a breach of the law going on in the club. These Amendments do not touch that provision at all. That remains intact.
I seek to make a change, or rather alternative changes, in the existing wording of Clause 25 (1). That Clause deals with a situation when an applicant has just applied for a registration certificate in relation to a club. The subsection contains a provision that a constable authorised by a chief officer of police and an officer of a local authority shall have the right, on giving due notice, to enter once for the purpose of an inspection after the application has been made and before the hearing takes place.
The concept is that there should be an opportunity both for the police and the local authority to enter premises on which it is proposed to conduct a club in order to satisfy themselves about the suitability of the premises, and in matters which would enable them to decide whether or not they would desire to raise objection to the granting of a certificate. Strong apprehension has been felt about the provision that the police should have that right of entry even on the occasion of the first application. The argument has been put forward, and it was exhaustively explored in Committee, that there was nothing that the police could detect when they made the examination which could not equally be detected by an officer of a local authority and its being prima facie a thing not altogether pleasing to be subjected to police scrutiny it is felt that the provision should be removed unless it is justified as absolutely necessary.
In Committee, the Government gave some indication of those things which

they thought police officers would be able to notice if they entered upon the premises.
Listening to the explanation of the Government case for wanting to preserve these powers, the Committee was left in some state of doubt. I certainly was. I asked myself, and I still do, why an inspection, if it takes place before an application is granted, should not be made by the appropriate officer of a local authority. What are the things which he is likely to want to see—whether there are suitable exits for fire, whether the premises are properly maintained, whether there is any danger to persons resorting to the premises, whether they are sanitary and wholesome from the point of view of ventilation, and so on? One would have thought that it would be vitally necessary that all these things should be examined when the pre-application inspection took place. One would have thought that the borough engineer or the architect would be an appropriate officer of the local authority to undertake such an examination.
One asks what, in addition, would a police officer be able to discover which the borough engineer or architect would not be able to discover. I still do not know. I do not quite know what would be of significance to a police officer when he went upon the scene, and why it is, therefore, that clubs, the vast majority of which are perfectly respectable, should be subjected to this humiliation so far as it goes when they apply for a registration certificate.
All of us in this country resent intrusion upon our liberties unless it can be shown that the intrusion is justified in the public interest. I put it to the Minister of State that so far we have not had an adequate justification. The Minister was, I thought, very much impressed by the questions put to him during the course of the Committee deliberations, and I thought he left us under the impression that he would give serious consideration to the matter and ascertain whether any changes would be appropriate.
It emerges fairly clearly that with one exception no change has been made. The exception is important and I call attention to it. It is contained in one of the Schedules and is embodied in a later Amendment. It is to the effect that in


the case of a working-men's club, if I may so loosely describe the definition in the Amendment, there should be no police inspection under the Clause if the club had been licensed for a period of not less than three years—broadly speaking, before the Bill comes into operation. That is a very important change and exonerates from inspection the great majority of working-men's clubs now in existence, for the vast majority will have been in existence for far longer than three years and none of them need have any apprehension that the power of police inspection under Clause 25 will be used in its case.
Still, the power exists in the case of all future clubs and of clubs which at the moment have been in existence for less than three years. So it is still a power the use of which even in the case of working-men's clubs requires to be very carefully scrutinised.
The power is one which is to be exercised in the case not only of workingmen's clubs but of all clubs. Therefore, the first questions I put to the Minister are as follows. What is the case for the police going into clubs at all? What is it that they will be looking for? What is it that they will be likely to find which the appropriate officer of a local authority would not be able to find? What, in general, is the case for saying that the police are to have these powers?
In asking these questions, I am not saying anything derogatory to the police. I feel sure that they will exercise their powers with discretion, wisdom and courtesy, as they do. Nevertheless there is a question whether a case exists for giving them this additional power, a very wide-ranging power because it will affect all clubs except those specifically excepted.
9.45 p.m.
Confronted with that situation, we have tabled Amendments making three separate proposals. The first is that which is contained in the Amendment which I have moved, which is to limit the power of inspection solely to an officer of the local authority. I think that I have made the case for that, such as it is, and the right hon. Gentleman will either accept it or reject it.
Secondly, I have put inspection by the local authority in the first place, and I

have provided that, although the chief constable is to be able to authorise a police constable to make an inspection as well as the local authority officer, nevertheless he is only to give that authority if
…in his opinion special reasons exist making it necessary that the premises should be inspected on behalf of the police authority.
In other words, prima facie it should be the local authority which, through its officer, carries out necessary inspections, but I do not take away the power of inspection by the police. I hedge it around, however, by the provision that the chief constable should not send in a police constable to make the inspection unless he has some special reason in his mind for thinking that it is necessary, owing to special circumstances, to have an inspection by the police.
My third proposal is contained in the Amendment to line 25. It is a plain and simple proposal to exclude altogether from the purview of police inspection the working-men's clubs as defined in that Amendment. The case for that has already emerged during the course of our debates today. It is, broadly speaking, that working-men's clubs, with their very large membership, and spread over the country, are well conducted and serve a useful social purpose.
That being their character, it is unjustifiable to subject them to this requirement of police inspection when there really is not an adequate case for so doing. It must be remembered, not only in the case of these clubs but also in the case of all clubs, that, side by side with this power of police inspection, there exists other power of inspection by the police if they obtain a warrant. This is contained in Clause 26 and I have already referred to it. It is not, therefore, as if a club can break the law with impunity. It cannot do so. Whether it be a working-man's club or not, it must submit to inspection on a justice's warrant as the law stands at present, and that provision is to be continued and is repeated in Clause 26.
In short, I make three separate sets of proposals. The first is to limit the power of inspection to a local authority; the second is to retain the police power of inspection to go with that of the local authority, but to limit the police power


by providing that the police constable is only to go in if the chief constable is satisfied that special and exceptional reasons make it necessary for there to be police inspection; thirdly, I propose to leave out altogether all the provisions relating to police inspection of working men's clubs, because of the special circumstances which obtain in their case.
I commend these three proposals to the House. I put them forward as alternative proposals in a desire to meet the situation which has given rise to widespread apprehension. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State will be able to see his way to accepting one or other of them.

Mr. Snow: I am addressing myself particularly to the proposed Amendment to line 25. I am aware that some of the things that I shall have to say have been said already, and I do not wish to detain the House by any form of repetition. But, at the same time, ever since the Bill was first tabled, and as a result of conversations I have had in my constituency, I have been impressed, as I have rarely been impressed, by the immense antagonism which this provision has created in the minds of many of my constituents.
In drafting this Clause the Government have been curiously insensitive to the general sentiment in areas outside the great urban concentrations. Many of my hon. Friends, with greater experience of this matter than I, will agree that working-men's clubs were created originally when social circumstances were a good bit harder than they are today and in small communities, many of them attached to particular industries, like coal, where, geographically speaking, it was not easy to produce social amenities of any sort. These clubs feature to this day in the life of ordinary people in a way which many hon. Members opposite find difficult to understand, since they are somewhat conditioned by the requirements of urban life.
In the West Midlands, for instance, an immensely important social change is going on with the exit of masses of the population from the highly concentrated areas to the sort of overspill receiving areas such as I represent. In those areas the Bill's provisions for new clubs become increasingly important.
I sometimes feel that hon. Members opposite do not quite understand the

immensity of the new housing estates which are being created in these overspill areas and where amenities practically do not exist, where shops hardly exist and where there is a definite need for some factor, some agency, in life to get the communities together. Workingmen's clubs fulfil that function. The very idea of the entry of the police is resented very strongly. What conceivable function could the police have in a new proposed club when every possible requirement could be judged, assessed and decided upon by the local authority representatives?
I recently had the honour of being a guest of honour at the golden jubilee of a working-men's club in Rugeley, in my constituency. That golden jubilee was celebrated by a dinner at which the president of the club mentioned that in the club's fifty years of existence there had not been one single occasion when the police had been brought in, or when there had been a police complaint, or any sort of brush with the Establishment. That goes for the overwhelmingly large proportion of working-men's clubs.
The Minister should be a little more sensitive about the prevailing attitude on this matter. I do not wish to import undue prejudice into my speech, but there is a feeling that this sort of proposal for police entry would not have been suggested had there been any serious question of new clubs in the West End. The fact of the matter is that the heyday of the old-established, reputable and distinguished clubs of the West End is over. Had that been the case, I doubt very much whether this proposal would have been put forward. In other words, it must apply only to the clubs about which I have been talking, and particularly to the new clubs which by the very nature of things must be developed on these new overspill housing estates.
I strongly support what my right hon. and learned Friend said. It would be wrong if the Minister did not take into account the strong resentment felt by many of my constituents against this proposal.

Mr. Shepherd: I readily understand, and to some extent share, the anxiety of those who do not wish the police to come on to their premises, but I think that the House is making rather heavy weather of this. After all, it is not as


though, as happens in some West End clubs, the police come in during the course of running the club to inspect the premises and see whether drinks are being served when they ought not to be. They come in only before the club begins to operate.
There is one reason why it is desirable that the police should conduct this form of activity. When an application is made to establish a club in a neighbourhood, there is often a good deal of resentment by those who live around, and a good deal of pressure is put on the local authority to resist the application. If an independent body like the police, who are not susceptible to electoral pressure, were to investigate the club and give an independent report, it would be a safeguard against the tendency on the part of local authorities to be susceptible to the pressure put on them by interested parties before whom they have to appear from time to time as candidates. I therefore think that it is a wise provision to have a second opinion by permitting the police, as well as the local authority, to submit a report on the desirability of the proposed premises.
I hope that the House will take the point that it is not necessarily against the interests of those who want to establish a club that some authority which is independent of the electoral pressure which can be put on a local authority should provide a report on the suitability of the premises and other factors.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Hon. Members who are interested in this Clause will appreciate that we are discussing a number of Amendments together to facilitate consideration of the issues involved and also to facilitate the business of the House.
A few weeks ago I attended a conference in Manchester of delegates from trades councils in the north-west area. Concern was expressed at the relatively large number of clubs which had been opened in that area in the last few years. This arose out of a discussion of the terrible fire at the club in Bolton. My knowledge of the fire was confined to what I had read in the papers, but Alderman Peter Flanagan, of Bolton, who had been very interested in what happened after the fire broke out, gave an account of the club and what went on

there, together with what the local authority had been doing. This created considerable concern amongst those present at the conference.
I did not say much, because I preferred to sit back and listen and learn from those who lived in the vicinity. It caused me some concern. I have since discussed the matter with a number of people who have been very active in the matter in that area over a long period—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the Provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out, to the second "any" in line 2, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have learnt a great deal, and I was surprised at the conditions which exist in that area. I hope that the Minister will give us an undertaking in respect of these Amendments before we part with them. I am pleased to see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has safeguarded the position of the working-men's clubs. At the conference to which I have referred concern was expressed about the effect of the Clause on those clubs. My right hon. and learned Friend has put down an Amendment to safeguard their position, and I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking in respect of it, if he cannot accept it.
The Minister should also deal with the other Amendments from the point of view of the lessons learnt from the terrible Bolton fire. It was obvious that no inspections had taken place. No attention had been paid to safety. That kind of thing happens in too many cases. I understand that in Manchester and similar areas mills have been taken over and used as clubs. Anybody who has doubts about the correctness of that should remember what occurred at Bolton. I hope that the Minister will make a clear statement showing how he proposes to deal with these clubs in order to prevent a repetition of the Bolton catastrophe.

Mr. Edelman: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has very properly drawn attention to the dangers caused by a lack of inspection of these premises. Nothing in the Clause appears to me to militate against a proper inspection of premises which may be used as clubs, whether the inspecting officers are police officers or members of the local authority; we are now specifically discussing the question whether this inspection should be undertaken by a police officer or an officer of the local authority. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) very properly asked what precisely a police officer would look for when he went into one of these clubs.
I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). Workingmen's clubs, with their long history, are a constantly expanding institution in our national life, and their organic method of development is to proceed from simple premises by steady enlargements, progressively to become the large and flourishing clubs which we know today. Because of that progressive enlargement, it is necessary, and would be under the Bill, for there to be not a single inspection, as has been suggested, at the beginning of the club's history and then total oblivion for the future, but a need for constant inspections.
Under the Bill, the police would require to have a repeated right of entry any time extensions were made to the premises. So it would he idle to dismiss the question of the appearance of the police on the premises merely as if that happened on a single occasion. On the contrary, each time an extension was made—we know that extensions are frequently made—it would mean that there would be a police inspection. It is true, as has been said, that law abiding people do not fear the police.
It is equally true to say that in working-class areas the appearance of a uniformed policeman is often an antagonistic phenomenon. Certainly, his appearance on club premises is an indication, if not of actual trouble, of potential trouble. A uniformed policeman is synonymous with difficulty; he is synonymous with objection; he is synonymous with the resentment which law-abiding people feel when

they consider that their privacy and personal security is menaced.
It is all very well to dismiss that as idle apprehension. I recall that in this Chamber some years ago the late Mr. W. G. Brown said that whenever he entered the precincts of the Palace of Westminster he felt a flutter of apprehension in his stomach when he passed a policeman. He said that that dated from his working-class origin, when a uniformed policeman in the street always meant that someone was in trouble. We cannot dismiss the fact that the feeling is there, and that there exists genuine resentment among the members of working-class clubs—premises which serve a most valuable democratic purpose—at the thought that they will be exposed to these incursions and snoopings by the police, who are the servants of the Executive, in order to assess whether the club should or should not be considered fit for registration.
In this matter we might take a lesson from the United States. There, the police have very important powers of entry into clubs and into places where normally a difficult and elaborate system must be carried out in order to obtain admission. We know that especially in places like Chicago the amount of corruption among the police is very high, precisely because they have the power and the opportunity to give personal concessions to special interests. I should not like to see the opportunity given to the police in Britain or rather, not the opportunity, but that they should be exposed to occasions of corruption by being put in a position in which they would have to make recommendations as to the worth or value of premises of this kind.
I should have thought the Home Secretary had his hands full in trying to deal with the crime wave. Only today and quite by chance, when I was in the Library I was looking at two newspapers, one a Birmingham newspaper and the other a South Wales newspaper. I read that in both Birmingham and South Wales the crime figures had never been higher. The police should be used for their proper purpose, which is to stem the crime wave. But here we have police officers, instead of being engaged in keeping the peace and preserving the law, given the difficult and


thankless task of inspecting club premises.
My right hon. and learned Friend has asked why? What are they to look for? Will they see whether the escape ladders are in the proper position? Surely that is a job for the borough engineer. Are they to consider whether the club premises are sanitary? Surely that is a job for the medical officer of health. Are they to see in those premises, which are yet to be occupied, whether people are behaving themselves? Quite clearly, since the premises are unoccupied, there is nothing for them to do in that respect.
It is clear that this is a civil activity which should be entrusted to a civil authority. This is a civil activity which should be entrusted to the officers of the local authority, each of whom has experience in the particular respect for which the premises should be inspected. If the Minister accepted the Amendment he would kill two birds with one stone. First, he would provide an answer to the profoundly felt resentment of the members of the Working-men's Club and Institute Union.
They sent representatives to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and myself from the Coventry area. There, they have about 30,000 club members who were filled with burning indignation at the prospect that they should be exposed to this new kind of snooping on club members who for many years have lived together in their communities with their clubs untroubled by incursions of the police authority and subjected to this examination. The Minister has an opportunity of doing not only the practical and right thing, but also of providing an answer to these deep psychological resentments felt by the Working-men's Club and Institute Union.
Working-men's clubs are, by nature and definition, private places. They are places where men go with their families to commune and find the kind of social activity which other people find at cocktail parties in West End clubs. They are clubs where they seek to enjoy the kind of entertainment which is traditional among them. They have never had police appearing in their clubs in uniform. If it were suggested that the police should appear not in uniform, that would be

worse than the proposal as the Bill stands.
I urge the Minister to consider the whole matter very carefully. The police have no business at all in these clubs. Let him entrust this task to local authorities' specialists, who have great experience in assessing the worth of club premises. Then he will go a long way to make the Club and Institute Union and working-men's clubs feel that the Government, instead of seeking to undermine their long-established traditions, are concerned in seeking to maintain the amenities of working-class clubs.

Mr. Vosper: I think it would be of help if I intervened to answer some of the questions which have been asked. During Second Reading representations were made from more than one quarter that full police entry should be afforded in the case of clubs as in the case of public houses. Those representations have continued during the passage of the Bill, although I note that no voice has been raised to that effect so far in this debate. Nevertheless, the Government have always taken the view that full police entry and inspection of clubs should not be introduced in this Bill.
That has never been in dispute. Despite that, there has been intense confusion as a result of this part of the Bill. Many clubmen in all parts of the country have been led to believe that policy entry during the operation of the club was being introduced, but that was never the intention and was never in the Bill. The present law is that there may be entry on a warrant. That, as the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said, is retained in this Bill in Clause 26. An additional power has been taken that there should be inspection prior to first registration. This is only a limited, once-for-all inspection before the first registration of the club. That was the only new proposal for police inspection ever made by the Government in the Bill for clubs.
10.15 p.m.
The reason for introducing the proposal was that in Clause 21 the police are given the right to object to the registration of a club. In particular, they are given the right to object on the ground that the premises are not suitable and convenient for the purpose in view


of their character and condition and of the size and nature of the club. It seemed to the Government difficult to give the police the right to object to the registration of a club if they had never seen the club. That is the first reason for allowing this once-for-all inspection of the club.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued, as did others of his colleagues in Committee, that that duty could be undertaken by the local authority. There is, however, a difference between the function of the police and that of the local authority in this respect. The local authority can also object to the registration of a club and its inspection would be concerned, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly said, possibly with the structure, the architecture and the sanitary aspects. The fire authority is now being brought in, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) referred to this. The fire authority will be able to object on the grounds that the fire precautions and appliances are not adequate.
The police, however, are concerned with something different. They are concerned with law and order, with control over the premises as a club. The local authority would be concerned, not with the order of the club running as a club, but with its structure and physical condition. It will not be concerned, as the police will be concerned, with the control of the club from the bar which is so necessary as in the case of a public house. Therefore, if a club is to set up premises in a basement or somewhere like that, it is right that the police, who will be responsible for objecting or not objecting to the application for registration, should visit the premises in the first instance to see whether those sort of premises are capable of being run as a club.

Mr. Ellis Smith: As I understand it, the Bolton affair would never have occurred had this Clause been in operation.

Mr. Vosper: I would not like to answer that question. Certainly, the Clause as amended at an earlier stage will give much greater power to prevent that sort of occurrence happening.

Mr. Snow: I am not quite clear what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at

about police inspection of premises beforehand. I understand perfectly about the location of the bar, from which the right hon. Gentleman said that the "pub" is controlled. That is a self-evident matter that the local authority could look at. But how could anyone judge the control of club premises when the place is empty and there is no pattern of behaviour by which to judge?

Mr. Vosper: I hope I am clarifying the position that the local authority will be concerned with physical structure of the club premises and, no doubt, the sanitary arrangements, but will not he concerned with the running of the club as an organisation, with the preservation of law and order, which is the particular responsibility of the chief officer of police. That is the matter with which the police must be concerned. This was a matter which we debated in Committee, and it was then argued that the police did, or should, know whether an established club was capable of being conducted within the limits of law and order without the necessity of this first inspection.
Following the Committee stage, I discussed the matter particularly with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis to see whether, in his judgment, these powers were necessary. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) intervened on an earlier Amendment about whether this was a London or a national problem. It is initially and basically a London problem, but, of course, it has its ramifications in the provinces. I discussed this issue particularly with the Commissioner of Police to see whether he insisted that the power of first inspection was necessary if he was to carry out his duty of preserving law and order. It is because of those discussions and the views urged on me in Committee that the later Amendment, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, in the Seventh Schedule, page 55, line 39, at the end to insert:
(4) Where during the transitional period a club remaining registered under the 1953 Act in respect of any premises applies for the issue of a registration certificate for those premises, section twenty-five of this Act shall not apply so as to authorise an inspection of the premises by a constable, if the club had for the three years preceding the appointed day been registered under the 1953 Act in respect of the premises.


is designed to exempt all established clubs from even this first inspection.
It is guesswork, but I should say that 95 per cent. or more of existing registered clubs in this country will be exempt from any form of inspection by that Amendment. I must make that clear, because as the Amendment appears later on the Notice Paper some hon. Members may not be aware of its existence. They have been exempted because it can be said that during the period of initial registration it is possible for the police to ascertain, by means available to them, that clubs are well conducted and that law and order can be preserved.
That same facility obviously does not arise in the case of a new club. There-tore, the Bill as it is before the House at the moment and without that Amendment merely preserves the power of police inspection for clubs which have not been registered for three years at the date of the Bill becoming an Act. That is the limited power still retained in this Bill. The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis believes that, if he is effectively to carry out the terms of Part III, he should retain that power, I have no reason to believe that the chief Constable of Coventry, for instance, would take a different view.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) rather suggested that this power was being imposed on the police. That certainly is not the case. At the moment the police are unable to deal with the drinking or bogus clubs because of the weakness of the law. We hope that the Bill will save police manpower because the law will become effective This is one of the provisions which is necessary to that end. I want the House to be quite clear. We are concerned with a very limited number here. We are merely concerned with clubs which have not been established for three years. The question is whether they should be inspected once to see whether law and order can be preserved.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me again if I would exempt working-men's clubs. I think that he is seized of the fact that one cannot discriminate between working-men's clubs, however laudable their purpose, and Conservative or British Legion clubs. One cannot exempt one type of club.

We discussed this at great length in Committee and I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman then accepted this argument.
He suggests, next, that this power should in some way be permissive, in the sense that only if a chief officer of police has good reason to believe that there is anything wrong with the club should he have power to inspect it. The purpose of the inspection is to see if the club is capable of being run as a club and whether objection should be laid before the magistrates. Therefore, it would be impossible to accept his suggestion that the power should be only permissive in such circumstances because it will be of general application.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: When the Minister of State says that the police will see whether a club can be properly run as a club, what is he referring to? Is he referring to the club as an organisation, as a going concern, or is he referring to the physical premises? I am in a complete muddle about this. I should like to know what the Minister of State has in mind. Are the police to go there for the purpose of gauging the suitability of the premises for running as a club, or are they to go there to see the club and its members in operation in order to decide whether the membership of the club and the way it is conducted are such that an extension can be granted or the premises licensed?

Mr. Vosper: The police will not generally be concerned with the structure of the club. That will be the concern of the local authority. The police will be concerned with seeing whether the premises are capable of enabling a club to be run there and those in charge of the club to be capable of exercising control. That is the purpose. That is the great difference between inspection by the police and by the local authority.
This power is permissive to the chief officer of police. But if he is to be in a position to object or not object before magistrates to the registration of a club, it is obviously in the interests of the club that the officer of police should have a chance of seeing the premises. The terms are very reasonable. The application has to be made in writing 48 hours in advance. There is no


question of a policeman in uniform appearing in uniform in the club unannounced to the inconvenience of the members. We are not concerned with police entry in that form in any sense of the word whatsoever—

Mr. Snow: They will not be there.

Mr. Vosper: The hon. Gentleman says that they will not be there, but it is quite possible for the police to examine a club that has not come into existence as an organisation to see whether or not the club can be run as premises—

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman says whether the club can be run as premises, but does he not mean whether the premises can be run as a club? I have rather an open mind on this and I want to know what the Government's answer is, but I am simply and completely foxed by what the Minister says. It is utterly impossible to follow him.
My difficulty is this. The police will go into the premises. When they go into the premises, what will they look for? Will they look for the behaviour of the members and the way in which the club is being conducted, or will they just look at the premises so as to satisfy themselves as to the premises, but with no members there at all? What will they be looking for? That is what we want to know.

Mr. Vosper: They will look at the premises, presumably, when they are unoccupied by members to see whether the premises are capable of being run as a club, and control kept by a committee or barman. If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not believe that it is possible, perhaps he will consult his own chief constable. This is an imposition laid on the authorities by the Government, but if the control of clubs is to be effective by means of this Bill, some chance to inspect the premises prior to the hearing of the application is not an unreasonable request.
This is a very limited power. From the original provisions in the Bill, we have reduced this power to apply only to, new clubs. It is certainly arguable whether or not one should drop the power altogether, but if one does that then, to some extent, one undermines

this part of the Bill, which has been supported by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are very reluctant to make the task of the authorities who have to administer the Bill more difficult than it need be. We have to balance that against the suggestion urged on me in this debate that this is an unnecessary power and will cause inconvenience to clubs.
I find it so difficult to think that this will really be an inconvenience. Existing clubs will be completely exempt from the provision. There will be one inspection of new clubs by notice given in writing by the chief officer of police, and that does not seem unreasonable. If the House does think it unreasonable; and that is more important than the preservation of law and order and the control of clubs under this part of the Bill, we will certainly give further consideration to the matter. The choice is between retaining this limited power as it is here, or dropping it altogether. I think that the other Amendment would do no good to either party.
By an Amendment that has not been fully discussed so far, the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) wants annual inspection by the local authority. That is asking for an increase of inspection, which is the opposite of what we have been considering in this debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has already said that he will consider whether the right of annual inspection should be given to the fire authority where there is a case. I think that there is a less case in regard to the ordinary local authority. We will take that point into consideration but to suggest that there should be an increase in inspection is in direct contradiction of what we have been listening to.
That summarises the Government's attitude. It is not a matter of great moment; it has been vastly exaggerated in the country. I still feel that many hon. Members think that this is a much worse threat to club life than it is, but if they are still of the opinion that it will be of great inconvenience and burden on the clubs and that that is worse than the burden on the law, we will look at it again.

Dr. Horace King: The Minister says that this provision applies only to new clubs, but under subsection (4) it will apply to clubs already registered when at any time they expand their premises.

Mr. Vosper: I should have made that clear. If an existing club extends its premises, then it will be liable for inspection

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very fair offer. If we object to this proposal and impress him with the strength of our objection, he will drop the proposal. I sincerely hope that he will, Otherwise, if we have the kind of police inspection to which he has referred, he will make the club coincide more nearly with the public house than most clubs would want.
I take as an example the ordinary licence in respect of a new house applied for by the brewers or by a prospective tenant. The premises have to comply with the byelaws of the local authority, and they cannot be erected if they do not. Sanitary and other requirements have to be complied with, and the case never reaches the licensing committee unless that sanction has been obtained. Speaking as an ex-chairman of a licensing committee, the first question I should put to learned counsel appearing for the local thirsty population—hon. Members would be surprised how great is the number of them and how great is their thirst—would be, "Have you secured the sanction of the local authority to the plans?". My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) would still make that a preliminary.
Thereafter, the police say whether the premises can be controlled. Are they so designed that they can be controlled? Is the licensee in a position to assure the police that at any given minute of the day or night when the premises are open he can accept full responsibility for everything which goes on? That is not my conception of the way a club is run.
I have belonged to two clubs in London. In my early, unregenerate youth, I was a member of the National Liberal Club. Now, being rather more sophisticated, I belong to another club. Neither of those two clubs would comply with police requirements of the kind I have just mentioned. The police are very traditional in their approach to this matter. It is a matter for the club committee how the club is laid out and the extent to which the committee, in its oversight of the steward during the time when the club is open, can ensure that the rules of the club and the requirements of the law are observed.
I do not want to see clubs constructed with the kind of bar one sees in some public houses, a bar from which, on occasions, two or three separate rooms are served. The atmosphere of the public house would become the predominating atmosphere in the club. I do not consider that the police have any ground for the intervention at the early stages which the Government's proposals give them.
The matters referred to by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) are town planning and similar requirements. I do not think that the police should be brought in, possibly in conflict with the local authority, on matters like that.
I hope that the Minister will be as good as his word and will feel that, without any real detriment, he can drop this proposal and leave the local authority to settle whether the inside of the club building complies with the byelaws or not. After all, the members themselves will try to shape the building, as experience teaches them, in a way which will enable them to get the benefits of a club without some of the detriments which they feel would flow from turning the club into a public house being run by the club committee.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I apologise for having missed a certain part of the debate—I went out to get something to eat—but I heard most of what the Minister of State had to say. I also remember vividly the discussions on this topic in Committee.
What I heard of the right hon. Gentleman's speech left me in rather a muddled state of mind. He did not seem to mind whether the provision was dropped or not; he was completely in the hands of the House, and if a majority of hon. Members felt that the provision should go, the Home Office would have no objection. If that is so, it makes a great deal of difference.
But this part of the Bill deals with clubs, and we cannot remind ourselves enough about that. Unfortunately it will bite on reputable clubs, particularly working-men's clubs, which have been very perturbed about some of the provisions, including this one. Many of us have agreed to these provisions because we believe that this part of the Bill has


one definite purpose—to deal with the unsavoury club. Decent clubs have nothing to fear. These provisions are aimed at what goes on in unsavoury clubs, the clubs that we want to get rid of.
As I understood from the right hon. Gentleman when we dealt with the matter in Commitee, although the local authority official and the town planning officer had to look at the premises, it was essential, for obvious reasons, that the police should have the right of entry. Now I understand that it is not really necessary for the police to enter even unsavoury clubs. If that is so, what is all the bother about? If after all this trouble and all the debates on this matter it is necessary to support the Government, I want to support them. If their view is that it is essential that powers of this kind should be provided to deal with the unsavoury club, I want to support them, because it is the unsavoury club that we want to get at.
Will the Solicitor-General or the Home Secretary, if the Minister of State feels that he cannot speak again, let us know what the real position is and whether the powers are essential, and whether they want us to vote for them if the matter goes to a Division?

Mr. Harold Gurden: Not all hon. Members are against the proposals in the Bill. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) said. My experience in my constituency and other parts of Birmingham is that when this matter is explained to those who are concerned with the running of clubs they do not oppose the Bill as it stands. I think that the misunderstanding that has arisen has been created by the clubs themselves, or by their organisations, which did not fully understand what the Bill meant to do. The clubs which have raised the matter with me are now quite satisfied that there is nothing in the provisions of the Bill to which they object.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) impressed me by referring to the accident at Bolton. That is the sort of case where the provisions of this Bill would help. Any additional advice, even from a local authority or a police officer, on the protection of a club prior to it being opened might be

quite useful in preventing such an accident.

Mr. Snow: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that in Birmingham the club organisations are prepared to accept this provision? It is not so.

Mr. Gurden: I did not say anything of the kind. I said that those clubs which have approached me—and several have done so—are now quite clear that what the Bill proposes does not interfere with them in any way, and they now take no exception to its provisions. That is quite clear. I did not say that the club organisations had done so. Perhaps what confused the hon. Member was my reference to the club organisations which have whipped up some feeling against these provisions. It was from these organisations that the information on this matter reached the clubs in the first place.
I was saying that the accident at Bolton was a reason why we should retain these provisions for as much inspection as possible of any premises that are to be opened as clubs. I see no reason for withdrawing these provisions, nor why my right hon. Friend should even think of doing so. No one will be hurt by inspection of premises it is intended to open as a club. They should be open to inspection if they are to be safe and reasonable for use as club premises.

Sir Barnett Janner: The position can be summed up in the one or two minutes that I intend to speak. I am of the same opinion as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who accepted the suggestion that was made by the Minister of State, that if the House felt that these provisions were not necessary he would concede the point we were putting. The argument that 95 per cent. of the clubs will not be affected is an argument in favour of those who say that police inspection is not necessary. In other words, it means that 95 per cent. of the clubs are already carrying on in such a way that they do not require police inspection.

Mr. Vosper: The problem has always been that of the new clubs. The established clubs in general are not a problem to the authorities.

Sir B. Janner: That is what I was saying. It has not been found necessary to alter what has already happened by sending police in to find out whether a club is suitable or not. That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman was saying.
10.45 p.m.
Secondly, I cannot for the life of me understand why the police should be brought in at all. For every purpose for which it is necessary to ascertain that the premises are suitable for use as a club, the local authority has the necessary powers, as have the authorities who have anything to do with fire risk and so on. No one would suggest that a local authority would permit premises to be used as a club if they were not suitable. The only thing that the police can do is to start disputing with the local authority about whose opinion is right or wrong.
The provision is wholly unnecessary. There is much to be said for the view that the arrival of the police on premises is regarded by reputable people as undesirable. If this is to be the provision, why should not the police be able to enter a private house to see whether a cocktail cabinet has been put in for private parties? There are often 40 or 50 or 60 people at a cocktail party in a private home. Why should not the police be able to to go to any premises which someone may want to use to see whether certain conditions should be imposed?
The Home Office should be prepared to accept the suggestion in the Amendments and follow the feeling prevailing in the House. Working-men's clubs, which are extremely well run, resent this kind of thing, and rightly resent it, as I would resent anyone coming into my home to see if I was providing proper facilities for the entertainment a guests or visitors.

The Solicitor-General: I must first apologise for the fact that I did not hear the beginning of the debate, and I shall therefore not be replying to any except the last few speeches which I have been privileged to hear.
I want, secondly, to make plain what sort of matter it is against which a police inspection would be directed. What the police are concerned with is

not the sanitary arrangements but matters of order. For example, the sort of thing on which the police would want to satisfy themselves is whether, when the premises are in a basement room and the membership is large, reasonable order could be maintained.
Having said that, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that both in Committee and on Report my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been guided in his conduct of the Bill by the general sense of the House. It has seemed to him that the general sense of the House in this case has been that we should try to limit the police inspection, even on the initial application, to the limited senses in which, as the House will see, there are reasons for requiring it. If the House will leave it in my right hon. Friend's hands to consider it before the Bill is considered in another place, it is in his mind to move an Amendment in another place somewhat on the lines of those of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice).
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Home Department has indicated, we are already virtually committed to considering the Amendment in line 11 in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) because that is merely an extension of an undertaking which I gave earlier in connection with fire authorities. If the House is content to leave it there, the matter will be further considered.

Sir F. Soskice: If I have the permission of the House to speak again, may I say that having listened to right hon. and learned Gentlemen I would be content to ask the permission of the House to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28.—(INTERPRETATION, AND TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)

Amendments made: In page 42, leave out line 34.

In page 43, line 9, at end insert:
(5) It is hereby declared that premises licensed under the Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954, are not, by virtue of the licence under that Act or of any excise licence granted in pursuance of it, licensed premises within the meaning of this Act or of the Licensing Act, 1953.—[Mr. Vosper.]

New Schedule.—(LICENSING PROCEDURE AND APPEALS)

PART I

GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO PROCEDURE, DURATION OF LICENCES AND APPEALS

1.—(1) The licensing justices for each licensing district shall hold a general annual licensing meeting and not less than four nor more than eight transfer sessions in the twelve months beginning with February in every year.

(2) The licensing sessions of each twelve months shall be held at as nearly regular intervals as may be, and the general annual licensing meeting shall be held in the first fortnight of February.

(3) The licensing justices shall appoint the day, time and place for holding the licensing sessions of each twelve months at a meeting held not less than twenty-one days before the day appointed for the general annual licensing meeting or, in the case of the transfer sessions, either at that meeting or at the general annual licensing meeting.

(4) The licensing justices may for the general annual licensing meeting appoint different days for different parts of the licensing district, and, if they do, may appoint different places also.

(5) A licensing sessions may for the purpose of dealing with business not disposed of be from time to time continued by adjournment beyond the day appointed for the holding of the sessions; but no new application may be made at any adjourned sessions, and references in any enactment (in whatever terms) to the day or first day of a licensing sessions and to the conclusion of a licensing sessions shall be taken as referring to the day appointed for holding the sessions and to the conclusion of the proceedings on that day (and, in the case of a general annual licensing meeting for which different days are appointed for different parts of the licensing district, as having reference to the one appointed for the relevant part of the district.

(6) When licensing justices have appointed the time and place for holding any licensing sessions, the clerk shall advertise notice of it in a newspaper circulating in the licensing district, and shall send notice of it

(a) to every member of the licensing committee;
(b) to every holder of a justices' licence in the licensing district;
(c) to every person who gives or has previously given the clerk notice of his intention to apply for a justices' licence at those sessions:
(d) to the chief officer of police for the police area or each of the police areas in which the licensing district or any part of it is situated.

2.—(1) A person proposing to apply at a licensing sessions for the grant of a new justices' licence, or for the ordinary or special removal or transfer of a justices' licence, shall give the following notices—

(a) not less than twenty-one days before the day of the licensing sessions he shall

give notice in writing to the clerk to the licensing justices, the chief officer of police and the proper local authority;
(b) in the case of a transfer he shall give the like notice to the holder of the licence (if any), and in the case of a removal he shall give the like notice to the registered owner of the premises from which it is sought to remove the licence and the holder of the licence (if any) unless he is also the applicant;
(c) except in the case of a transfer, he shall—

(i) not more than twenty-eight days before the day of the licensing sessions display notice of the application for a period of seven days in a place where it can conveniently be read by the public on or near the premises to be licensed (or, in the case of an application for a provisional grant, on or near the proposed site of those premises); and
(ii) not more than twenty-eight days nor less than fourteen days before the day of the licensing sessions (and, if the licensing justices so require, on some day or days outside that period but within such other period as they may require) advertise notice of the application in a newspaper circulating in the place where the premises to be licensed are situated.

(2) A person proposing to apply at transfer sessions for the renewal of a justices' licence shall give notice in accordance with paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) above.

(3) With the notice given under paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) above to the clerk to the licensing justices there shall be deposited a plan of the premises to be licensed, if the application is

(a) for the grant of a new justices' on-licence or of an ordinary removal of a justices' on-licence; or
(b) for the provisional grant of a new justices' off-licence or of an ordinary reinoval of a justices' off-licence;

and is not an application made in accordance with subsection (2) of section thirteen of this Act for a provisional grant.

(4) A notice under this paragraph

(a) shall be signed by the applicant or his authorised agent;
(b) shall state the name and address of the applicant and, except in the case of a removal of a licence held by him or of a renewal, his trade or calling during the six months preceding the giving of the notice;
(c) shall state the situation of the premises to be licensed and, in the case of a removal, the premises from which it is sought to remove the licence;
(d) in the case of a new licence, shall state the kind of licence for which application is to be made.

(5) The notice required by paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) above to be given to the proper local authority shall be given

(a) if the premises to be licensed are in an urban parish, to the clerk to the rating authority;


(b) if those premises are in a borough included in a rural district, to the town clerk (as well as to the clerk to the rating authority);
(c) if those premises are in a rural parish, to the clerk to the parish council or, where there is no parish council, to the chairman of the parish meeting,

and, in the case of a new licence or a removal, shall also be given to the authority discharging in the area where those premises are situated the functions of fire authority under the Fire Services Act, 1947.

(6) In relation to the notice required by paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) above to be given to the chief officer of police, subsection (4) of section one hundred and sixty-five of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which prescribes by reference to the situation of the relevant premises the chief officer of police to whom notices are to be given) shall have effect in the case of a removal (as in other cases) as if the references to the premises to which the notice relates were references to the premises to be licensed.

(7) Where the applicant for the grant of a justices' licence has, through inadvertence or misadventure, failed to comply with the requirements of this paragraph, the licensing justices may, upon such terms as they think fit, postpone consideration of his application; and, if on the postponed consideration they are satisfied that any terms so imposed have been complied with, they may deal with the application as if the applicant had complied with the requirements of this paragraph.

3.—(1) On the consideration of an application for a justices' licence the applicant shall, if so required by the licensing justices, attend in person (but so that in the case of a renewal the applicant shall not be required to attend unless objection is made to the renewal), and licensing justices may postpone consideration of an application until the applicant does so attend.

(2) Subsections (1), (3) and (4) of section seventy-seven of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (which provide for compelling the attendance of witnesses, etc.), shall apply in relation to licensing justices and to an application for the grant of a justices' licence as if they were a magistrates' court for the petty sessions area constituting the licensing distrot and the application were a complaint.

4.—(1) Subject to the following sub-paragraphs, sections thirty-five to thirty-seven of the Licensing Act, 1953, shall apply in the case of any appeal to quarter sessions against a decision or order of licensing justices under that Act or this Act as they apply in the case of an appeal against a refusal to renew a justices' licence (subject, however to any special provision made by section thirty-five for appeals against orders under section twelve of that Act, and to any enactment providing for that section to apply as it applies to appeals against such an order).

(2) No person may appeal to quarter sessions against the grant of a justices' licence who has not appeared before the licensing justices and opposed the grant; and no person may appeal against a refusal to attach conditions to a licence or to vary or revoke conditions

previously attached, except the person (if any) whose application or request is required for the justices to have jurisdiction to attach or to vary or revoke the conditions: but where under subsection (6) of section two of this Act conditions are attached on the occasion of a renewal, transfer or removal, the applicant for the renewal, transfer or removal may appeal notwithstanding that it is done at his request.

(3) On an appeal against the grant of a justices' licence the applicant for the licence and not the licensing justices shall be respondent, and notice of appeal must be given to him as well as to the clerk of the licensing justices; and the proviso to subsection (1) of section thirty-six and section thirty-seven of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which relate to the costs of licensing justices on an appeal) shall not apply.

(4) On an appeal against a refusal to grant a justices' licence, or against a decision as to conditions given on the grant of a licence, any person who appeared before the licensing justices and opposed the grant shall be respondent in addition to the licensing justices.

(5) On appeals to which section thirty-five of the Licensing Act, 1953, applies, the clerk to the licensing justices shall transmit the notice of appeal to the clerk of the peace, and the appeal shall be entered and notice thereof given by the clerk of the peace, as in a case where the justices' clerk is required to transmit the notice of an appeal from a magistrates' court and subsection (2) of section eighty-five of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, shall apply accordingly with respect to the abandonment of the appeal; and where a person appears before licensing justices and opposes the grant of a justices' licence, his name and address shall be recorded by the clerk to the licensing justices and, in the event of an appeal against a refusal of the grant or against a decision as to conditions given on the grant, shall be transmitted to the clerk of the peace with the notice of appeal.

(6) Where there is an appeal against a decision as to the conditions of a licence, or where an appeal quarter sessions grant or confirm the grant of a licence, quarter sessions may by their order make any provision as to the attachment of conditions which the licensing justices might have made; and subsection (5) of section two of this Act shall apply with the necessary modifications where on an appeal quarter sessions refuse to confirm a grant of a new justices' on-licence.

(7) The quarter sessions having jurisdiction under subsection (1) of section thirty-five of the Licensing Act, 1953, to entertain an appeal against the grant of or refusal to grant an ordinary removal from one county (within the meaning of that subsection) to another, or against a decision as to conditions given on such a grant, shall be determined by reference to the situation of the premises to be licensed.

(8) Where the same application to licensing justices gives rise to more than one appeal to quarter sessions, quarter sessions may give such directions as they think fit for the appeals to be heard together or separately, and where two or more appeals are heard together, quarter sessions may deal with the costs of


the appeals, so far as those costs are in their discretion, as if it were a single appeal.

5.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule, a justices' licence—

(a) shall be granted to have effect from the time of the grant until the end of the licensing year or, if it is granted in the last three months of a licensing year, until the end of the following licensing year; but
(b) shall be superseded on the coming into force of a licence granted by way of renewal, transfer or removal of it.

(2) A justices' licence granted by way of transfer or removal may be granted to have effect from a time specified in the grant (not being earlier, where it is granted before the coming into force of the licence transferred or removed, than the time of the coming into force of that licence).

(3) In the case of a licence granted provisionally, sub-paragraph (1) above shall apply as if it were granted at the time when it is declared final, but a transfer of such a licence may be granted so as to have effect for the purpose of superseding that licence from a date before it is declared final, and, if so granted, shall as regards its duration and coming into force be subject to the same provisions as if it were the licence transferred.

(4) Where on the renewal or transfer of a licence the licensing justices attach new conditions (whether in addition to or in substitution for any conditions previously attached), the justices may, on such terms as they think just, suspend the operation of those conditions in whole or in part pending the determination of any appeal against the decision to attach them or pending the consideration of the question of bringing such an appeal.

(5) When (under subsection (4) of section six of the Licensing Act, 1953, or any previous enactment to the like effect) a justices' licence has before the coming into force of this paragraph been granted otherwise than as an annual licence, any licence granted by way of transfer (directly or indirectly) of that licence shall be granted to have effect for a period ending with the term for which that licence was granted:

Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not apply where, after the coming into force of this paragraph, there has been a removal of that licence.

(6) This paragraph shall apply to licences granted by way of removal of a licence in suspense by virtue of section eighty-three or ninety-two of the Licensing Act, 1953, but subject to that shall not affect subsection (4) of section eighty-four or subsection (4) of section ninety-four of that Act.

(7) For the purposes of this paragraph "licensing year" means the twelve months beginning with the fifth day of April in any year.

6.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect where on an application to licensing justices for the grant of a new justices' licence or for the grant of a licence by way of ordinary removal of a justices' licence, a person appears before the licensing

justices and opposes the grant, but the justices grant the licence.

(2) Until the expiration of the time for bringing an appeal against the grant and, if such an appeal is brought, until the appeal has been disposed of,

(a) the licence granted shall not come into force;
(b) (subject to any direction of the licensing justices to the contrary) in the case of an ordinary removal the licence which it is sought to remove, if in force at the time of the grant, shall not expire.

(3) If on appeal the grant is confirmed or if the appeal is abandoned, the time when the appeal is disposed of shall be substituted for the time of the grant for the purpose of determining the period for which the licence is to have effect, and quarter sessions shall (if need be) amend the licence accordingly.

(4) If there is an appeal against the grant of an ordinary removal, and the licence which it is sought to remove is in force on the day when notice of appeal is given to the applicant for the removal, then—

(a) he may within seven days of that day give notice in writing to the clerk of the peace of his desire that the expiration of that licence shall be postponed for a specified period (not exceeding three weeks) after the appeal is disposed of, and if he does so, sub-paragraph (2) above shall apply until the expiration of that period;
(b) whether or not he gives such a notice, quarter sessions, if they confirm the grant and if he so requests, may by their order direct that that sub-paragraph shall continue to apply for such further period as they think fit;
(c) if quarter sessions refuse to confirm the grant, and at the time of their decision it is too late to renew that licence at the general annual licensing meeting at which it was due for renewal, then—

(i) the holder of the licence shall be treated as having had reasonable cause for not applying for renewal at that meeting, and the licence may be renewed at transfer sessions accordingly; and
(ii) if notice has been given under paragraph (a) above, and within the period for which the licence is continued in force by that paragraph notice is given to the clerk to the licensing justices of an application for the renewal of the licence at the first licensing sessions held not less than twenty-one days after the notice is given, the licence shall not expire until the application is disposed of or those sessions end without it being made.

PART II

ADAPTATIONS AND CORRECTIONS OF LICENSING ACT, 1953

7. In subsection (1) of section one hundred and sixty-five of the Licensing Act, 1953, the definition of "new justices' licence" shall be omitted, and in that Act and this Act "new" in relation to a justices' licence shall be taken as referring to a licence granted otherwise than by way of renewal, transfer or removal.

8.—(1) For the purposes of the Licensing Act, 1953, the renewal of a justices' licence shall not include the grant of a licence to a person other than the holder or last holder of the licence to be renewed; but in relation to a transfer of a justices' on-licence whereby the duration of the licence is extended subsection (2) of section eleven and section twelve of that Act (which give licensing justices in the case of a renewal certain powers to call for a plan of the licensed premises and to require structural alterations) shall apply as they apply in relation to a renewal.

(2) The proviso to subsection (1) of section eleven of the Licensing Act, 1953, shall cease to have effect, but where the holder of a justices' licence fails to apply for its renewal at the general annual licensing meeting at which it is due for renewal, and the licence expires in consequence of his failure, an application by him for a similar licence for the same premises shall be treated as an application for renewal, and the grant of the licence applied for shall be treated as a renewal of the expired licence, if the application is made not later than the next general annual licensing meeting and the licensing justices are satisfied that he had reasonable cause for his failure.

(3) In subsections (3) and (4) of that section, the reference to the holder of a justices' licence shall include the last holder of an expired licence, and for the reference in subsection (3) to the general annual licensing meeting there shall be substituted a reference to the licensing sessions.

9.—(1) Any removal may be granted to a person other than the holder of the licence removed, and the application for the removal and, in the case of a temporary premises removal, the application for the certificate of the licensing planning committee shall be made, as in the case of an application for an ordinary removal, by the person wishing to hold the licence after removal.

(2) The provisons of the Licensing Act, 1953, with respect to special removals shall apply only in the case of an old on-licence, and (subject to the restrictions on removals imposed by Parts II and III of that Act) in relation to the special removal of an old on-licence subsection (4) of section eleven and sections fourteen, fifteen and seventeen of that Act shall apply as they would apply in the case of a renewal, except that

(a) any reference to the licensed premises being structurall y deficient or structurally unsuitable as a ground for refusing the grant shall apply to the premises to be licensed and;
(b) where the occasion for the special removal is the pulling down of the licensed premises or those premises having been rendered unfit by fire, tempest or other calamity, any compensation for the refusal of the grant shall be determined as if the premises were in the same condition as at the last renewal or transfer of the licence.

10. The provisions of section eighteen of the Licensing Act, 1953, as to the charges payable in respect of the renewal of old on licences shall have effect also in respect of a transfer or removal of such a licence whereby the duration of the licence is extended (the

charge in respect of a removal to a different area being payable in that area); and references to renewal in sections forty-nine and fifty of that Act (which contain supplementary provisions as to the renewal of old on-licences) shall include transfer and removal.

11. In subsection (5) of section forty-eight of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which contains a saving for acts done by a justice as a member of a licensing committee or confirming authority while disqualified for membership), for the reference to a confirming authority there shall he substituted a reference to a compensation authority.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Schedule be read a Second time.

Sir F. Soskice: This is a very complicated Schedule. I have read it several times and I am convinced that I have missed half of it. I think that before we give it blank approval that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should give us some indication of its content.

The Solicitor-General: I briefly indicated the contents of this Schedule in connection with an Amendment which we discussed at the beginning of the Report stage, which amounted to this, that we removed from Clause 1 and from the general law the confirmation procedure in so far as it related to the new Part I licences, and we also removed the confirmation procedure in respect of the general law.
In place of that we put a system of appeals to quarter sessions. That system of appeals to quarter sessions was not only at the suit of an applicant who had been refused an on-licence, but also also at the suit of an objector. That new code obviously commended itself to the House, as it commended itself to the Committee upstairs when it was adumbrated by my right hon. Friend.
Having instituted a new system of appeals to quarter sessions, it meant a considerable redrafting of the procedure before the licensing justices generally. Once we embarked on that, it gave an opportunity to review the existing code of procedure before the licensing justices.
Except for the confirmation procedure, that procedure before the licensing justices dated from the last century, and was out of date in many respects. We therefore thought that the convenient thing to do was to pick out all the existing statutes and re-enact a code of


procedure which fitted into system which the House had of appeals to quarter sessions, it up to date.
The main matters in which the Schedule makes improvements and changes are as follows. I would be very pleased to answer any points of detail that may occur to hon. Members on the Schedule, but the easiest way is for me to say in what respects it departs from the existing procedure.
First, the old procedure provides for notice to be given to potential objectors very largely by posting the notice of application to the licensing justices on the church door. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) smiles, but he, with his experience on licensing benches, probably knows better than anyone else in the House that that procedure still exists. This has been replaced by a system of advertising similar to that which we laid down in the Betting and Gaming Act. All church door notices are now abolished, and there is substituted a requirement for newspaper advertisement. In the past the notice had to be given to the Chairman of the parish council; it must now be given to the clerk to the parish council. That was pressed on us by the National Association of Parish Councils as being a desirable improvement.
I think I mentioned earlier that there is a new requirement about notice to fire authorities. I know the House will have in mind the sort of situation to which that is directed. It is of particular significance at this time, because there is a little danger that some clubs may seek licences in view of the provisions of Part III. In other words, it may be felt that these provisions are too stringent and clubs may seek an ordinary on-licence because they do not qualify for registration. Apart from those and other minor procedural reforms, the Schedule is concerned with appeals to quarter sessions and the commencement and duration of licences. It contains provisions about the proper parties to appeals, and the procedure and the cost of appeals. The House will have realised that the provisions about the duration of licences are those which we went into exhaustively in Committee, on Clause 11.
Paragraph 1 governs the holding of the new brewster and transfer sessions. It modifies the present law in a way made and bring necessary by the provisions of the new Clause which we passed at the commencement of the Report stage, allowing licences to be granted at transfer sessions. Formerly they could be granted only at brewster sessions, held each March. Now they can be granted additionally at transfer sessions, which, under the new law, as under the old, are held anything from four to eight times a year. This means that the application for a new licence can be heard, roughly speaking, at the time it arises, without its having to wait for perhaps eleven months, if the desire for it arises shortly after the brewster sessions have been held.
Paragraph 2 deals with the procedure for application to the licensing justices. I have mentioned the main amendments to existing practice which it creates: the church door notices replaced by newspaper advertisements, the notice to the clerk of the parish council instead of the chairman, and the requirement to the fire authority. Paragraph (3) deals with procedure before the licensing justices and, I think, is self-explanatory. Paragraph (4) sets up the machinery for appeals under the Clause which has already been approved and is modelled on Sections 35–37 of the 1953 Act. Paragraphs (5) and (6) govern the coming into force and duration of justices' licences, and, as I said, much of it was contained in Clause 11.
11.0 p.m.
Part II is mainly concerned with drafting or technical amendments to the 1953 Act. I think that paragraph 9 (2) is the only one to which I need refer at this stage. By that a special removal may be granted only in the case of an old on-licence. A special removal, the House will know, is one which takes place only in certain very extraordinary circumstances, mainly in cases where the old premises have been totally destroyed or have fallen down, or something like that. The ordinary removal may now be granted at transfer sessions, and therefore an ordinary removal will serve instead of a special removal in all cases except that of the old on-licence, where special privileges apply.
As I have said, I shall be glad to explain any further detail later. I hope I have indicated the main alterations.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I wonder if it would be possible when the Bill reaches another place for cross-headings to be put into this Schedule. It is a very long and, for some people, probably a complicated Schedule, and it is not easy to find what one wants unless one has either marginal notes or cross-headings. It occurs to me that possibly the Solicitor-General might consider that when the Bill gets to another place or is reprinted, as I gather it is to be in the next 24 hours, something of the kind might be done.
The Solicitor-General made no reference to Schedule 8, but obviously it goes with this as, because of this Schedule, a number of changes will have to be made in the 1953 Act. I may be wrong, but so it seems to me. I do not blame the Solicitor-General for not referring to it, but I take it that when we reach that Schedule we shall pass through it quite quickly because many of the Amendments there suggested hinge on this new Schedule.
I for one have wondered whether, if an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House had not by inadvertence voted the wrong way in Committee, we should have had this Schedule at all. It was a change in the Bill during the early days in Committee, which re-inserted the confirming authority as part of the procedure in the Bill, that obviously has led to this, and if this is going to be a better way of dealing with it I for one am not sorry that the hon. Gentleman on that occasion made the mistake he did. Some of us are a little sorry that the confirming authority is going. They have done a very good work in the past. But I suppose it was inevitable in view of the fact that licensing justices are going to have their authority so much curtailed under the provisions of the Bill that the confirming authority became in some ways slightly redundant.

Mr. Rees-Davies: It is regrettable that on both occasions when we have arrived at the Schedules it has been at the end of the day. May I ask these specific questions for future reference? Have there been discussions with the various trade parties affected with regard to the

very detailed and excellent procedure laid down? If not, could that take place to make sure that they agree that this is a procedure which is suitable to them? I think the appeal to quarter sessions is a much better procedure than the confirming authority. What will be the position under this Schedule regarding the fact that a licence cannot be granted pending an appeal? The additional sessions are excellent in every way. There are now eight, but the difficulty is that there does not appear to be provision for a licence to come into effect in the event if an appeal.
Can it be ascertained whether the justices can dispense with the attendance of the parties and their witnesses for special occasions? That was a matter which was canvassed during the Committee stage proceedings along with many other points which have been satisfactorily covered in the Schedule. If that matter could be looked at, it would mean that it had been dealt with in this one comprehensive Measure. There will be an opportunity for these things to be looked at carefully in another place and therefore other suggestions may be made at a later date.

The Solicitor-General: There have been no consultations with the trade on this Schedule. But, on the other hand, it has been in print for quite a time and we have had no representations against it or any part of it. The representatives of the trade have been rightly alert to scrutinise the proceedings on this Bill. We will examine the other points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) for what he said about the improvements to the Bill. We will favourably consider putting in cross-headings, which I think a good suggestion. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will excuse us if we do not do it before the Bill is reprinted. We have the Third Reading the day after tomorrow and, therefore, the re-printing will have to be undertaken pretty quickly.
I am sorry if I did not make plain that the necessary Amendments to the 1953 Act occur in the second part of the Schedule. They are quite extensive as


a result of a number of essential Amendments to the Eighth Schedule which no doubt we can consider when we come to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule added to the Bill.

Second Schedule—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION FOR POLLS IN WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.)

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 44, line 42, after "1949" to insert:
and any regulations made under section forty-two of that Act".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think this Amendment is consequential and may be taken with the next six Amendments standing in the name of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for this Amendment. I am sure that on reflection he realises that in the original draft he made a very great mistake and did a great injustice, for he left out any arrangements for postal voting in a referendum to which those of us from Wales attach great importance. These Amendments cover that point, which was made strongly in Committee, and we thank the Minister for acceding to our request.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 44, line 47, leave out "21."

In page 45, line 3, leave out "or to postal voting."

In line 6, leave out "seven" and insert "eight."

In line 15, at end insert:
5.—(1) Regulations made under section forty-two of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, may, so far as they relate to voting by proxy or by post or to matters connected therewith, make special provision in connection with polls under section six of this Act; but subject to any such provision the regulations shall apply

(a) with the omission of any passage relating to candidates or their agents or to other matters not relevant to such a poll; and
(b) with the substitution for any reference to the last day for the delivery of nomination papers of a reference to the last day for delivery of requisition papers under section six of this Act; and

(c) as if any provision for subsection (4) of section fifty-three of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, to be read to a person making a declaration of secrecy were a provision for it to be read with the modifications provided for by section six of this Act;

and any form prescribed by any such regulations in connection with voting by proxy or by post shall be used with such modifications (if any) as may be approved by the Secretary of State as necessary to adapt it for the purposes of a poll under section six.
(2) If the date for the poll is altered after any postal ballot papers have been issued, then

(a) on any later issue the covering envelopes enclosed for the return of declarations of identity and ballot papers shall be readily distinguishable from those enclosed on the previous issue, (that is to say, the issue before the alteration of the date), and there shall be enclosed a notice calling attention to the change of date and stating that documents sent out on the previous issue are not to be used;
(b) any covering envelopes of the previous issue sent to the returning officer shall on receipt be dealt with in the same way as covering envelopes of later issues, but, on the opening of the ballot boxes provided for covering envelopes, those of the previous issue shall be marked "rejected", shall be set aside unopened, and thereafter shall be dealt with in the same way as other rejected votes;
(c) save as aforesaid, the previous issue shall be disregarded for all purposes.

In page 45, line 15, at end insert:
5.—(1) In a county the county returning officer, and in a county borough divided into wards the mayor, may make arrangements for the votes to be counted not by electoral areas, but for the county or county borough as a whole or by such divisions of it as he thinks most convenient, and where arrangements are so made, the counting for the county or county borough as a whole or for each division of it, as the case may be, shall be carried out as it would be if that were the electoral area for which an election were being held:
Provided that where arrangements are so made in relation to a county borough the mayor shall act as returning officer in relation to the counting of the votes, but shall have the like powers in relation to the appointment of deputies as a county returning officer has.
(2) Where the votes are counted otherwise than for the county or county borough as a whole, then on the completion of the counting or any recount for an electoral area or other division the person acting as returning officer for the purpose (if he is not the county returning officer or mayor) shall forthwith notify the county returning officer or mayor of the number of votes counted on either side, but no other step shall be taken (except proper steps for the security of the ballot papers and other documents) unless or until it is ascertained that there is not to be a recount or further recount.
(3) Where it appears to the county returning officer or mayor, on the completion of the


counting for the whole county or county borough, that the number of votes counted does not show a majority of more than one hundred for either side, he shall cause the votes to be re-counted and, if the decision on the poll according to the recount would differ from the decision according to the original count, to be again re-counted, and the recount or, if there is one, second recount shall be treated as determining the number of votes cast on either side.
(4) The number of votes cast on either side shall in a county be notified by the county returning officer to the chairman of the county council.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 45, line 16, at the beginning to insert:
5.—(1) At a poll in a county or county borough any local government elector for the county or county borough may claim to attend the counting of the votes as an observer, by giving to the county returning officer or mayor within seven days of the end of the period allowed for delivering requisition papers a written notice signed by the elector and stating his address, and subject to sub-paragraph (2) below he shall then have the same rights and obligations and be in all respects in the same position (as nearly as may be) in relation to the counting as a counting agent appointed by a candidate at an election of a councillor for the county or borough, except that his agreement shall not be required to any interruption of the counting.
(2) There shall not be allowed to attend the counting of the votes at any place a greater number of observers under his paragraph than the number of clerks emloyed there in the counting, or any observer not duly notified of the time and place of counting; and the persons to be allowed to attend as observers in any case shall he designated by the county returning officer or mayor.
(3) A local government elector may in like manner claim to attend the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers, as well as or instead of the counting of the votes, and the foregoing sub-paragraphs shall apply with the necessary modifications of the references to the counting or to a counting agent:
Provided that the number to be allowed to attend on any occasion shall be restricted to such number as the county returning officer or mayor may decide to be reasonable in the circumstances.
This is a new point in answer to representations made by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) that we should appoint scrutineers or observers at the count in these elections. No provision was made for this initially because scrutineers or observers are normally appointed by the candidates, none of whom exist for these arrangements. This provision will make arrangements for any elector to apply to attend the count. It will then be arranged for the clerk

who is in charge of the count to appoint scrutineers—or I prefer to say observers—not to exceed in number the number of counting agents or clerks appointed by him. The Amendment will also make arrangements for scrutineers or observers to be present at the counting of the postal votes. Therefore, in that part of the Amendment I meet the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Caernarvon.
I have not given effect to the further point the hon. Member made that these observers should be appointed to represent both parties, as he put it, who will be concerned in these elections. I have not done that for reasons I advanced in Committee, namely, that we thought it impossible for any returning officer to be able to decide exactly who are the different parties concerned in these elections. This point was put to those representatives of the local authorities who kindly came to the Home Office to discuss these arrangements following the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). They felt that to impose in the statute any obligation on them to appoint observers according to their point of view would be an invidious task. Nevertheless, although that is not implied in the Amendment, it is in the Amendment which the hon. Member for Caernarvon will no doubt be moving. This Amendment allows far the appointment of observers who, I am sure, will ensure that they represent all points of view.

Mr. G. Roberts: I did not intend to raise the point which is contained in the Amendment to the Amendment in discussion of this Amendment if, as I understand is the case, the Amendment to the Amendment is to be called.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, it is the intention to call that Amendment.

Mr. Roberts: Shall I move it separately?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I had thought that the hon. Member would want to speak on that Amendment now. If he makes a speech now not on that Amendment he will have exhausted his right to speak on it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will you allow  hon. Friend to move that Amendment now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought that would be the most convenient plan if it is convenient to the House.

Mr. G. Roberts: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to insert:
and shall be selected in equal numbers from among

(a) those who have signed the form of requisition of poll, and
(b) those who are opposed to Sunday opening of licensed premises".

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was not sure that it was in order to move the Amendment to the Amendment at this stage.
We appreciate that in these matters relating to the actual conduct of the count, the Minister has listened to what we said in Committee. I think it is common ground on both sides of the House among those hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee that when the Second Schedule was considered by the Committee it was found to be seriously defective. There was no provision for postal voting, which one would ordinarily expect in relation to any kind of poll in this country. Nor was there any provision to prevent a clash between the date of local polls and Parliamentary elections. Nor was there a provision for a recount, which could easily arise in any one of the polling units. Nor, as the Amendment makes clear, was there any provision for the admission of observers to the count, other than the officers directly concerned.
11.15 p.m.
We felt that these were very serious omissions, as the Government could draw upon a substantial corpus of experience, legislation and regulations in regard to Parliamentary and local government elections and also local polls held on this question in Scotland. We are extremely glad that these serious deficiencies have now been put right. However, I have moved our Amendment because what the Minister of State said does not completely meet our desires. It is usual and necessary in the conduct of a count that observers should be present from among the protagonists, to whom the returning officer may refer, if he wishes, for advice as to the validity of doubtful papers, for instance. It is not enough to provide, as the Government

Amendment provides, the admission of observes as such. That goes part of the way. It is necessary that they should be drawn from both sides in the issue.
The right hon. Gentleman said, first, that it was not desired by the local authorities. I doubt that very much, because I have spoken to members and officers of local authorities in Wales. They feel that this should have been included from the start. He said, secondly, that he was certain that in the event returning officers would ensure that there would be observers drawn from both sides of the argument. That is not good enough, especially when it is quite feasible to indicate to the officers in charge of counts how to ensure that an equal number of observers shall be drawn from the two sides.
We have suggested that they be
selected in equal numbers from among—
(a) those who have signed the form of requisition of poll".
That is perfectly simple. In each county or county borough, before a poll can be held no fewer than 500 local government electors must have signed a form of requisition. If the returning officer selects, according to the provisions of the Government Amendment, 2, 3 or 6 persons from among those and allows them to attend, that will take care of that section of the representation.
As to the other section, it may seem that no one party or organisation will oppose Sunday opening, which is the question to be put to the electorate. There is no difficulty there, because the Government Amendment provides that people who desire to attend a count as observers shall write to the returning officer within seven days after the notice is given. Consequently, each returning officer will, very early in the proceedings, be in possession of the applications from, among others, people who are opposed to Sunday opening. If, therefore, the Government were to indicate, either in the words of the Amendment—which I am advised is perfectly in order and quite practicable for the purpose—or by adding a subsection (4) saying that the returning officers shall have regard to the varying views of the people concerned in these polls when selecting observers, the position could be met. We do not think that is enough merely to


say that the Minister is certain that these observers will be drawn from both sides of the argument. I repeat that we think it perfectly feasible for the Minister to add suitable words formally to indicate—along with the other things that he indicates in his Amendment—that such a procedure shall be followed by the returning officers concerned.

Mr. Vosper: I am afraid that I dealt in part only with the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts). I fully admit that the Bill as introduced probably was defective, and made no provision for scrutineers or observers. The reason was that, again, there were no candidates as at local elections. We have devised a new and original procedure in our present Amendment.
As the hon. Gentleman said, his Amendment is in order, but it is quite defective. I do not want to make too much of this point, but it would be quite effective if it could be operated in regard to the first poll, but in seven years' time when licensed premises are open in Caernarvon his paragraph (b) would have the reverse effect, because he would then need to provide for those in favour of Sunday opening. In other words, the Amendment would stand only for the first poll, and not for the one taking place seven years later.
As I said in my original intervention, this subject was discussed with some of those who have to organise these elections. I had hoped that one of these would be the Clerk of the Caernarvon County Council, but he could not accept the invitation. Those people felt that to have inserted in the statement a directive that they should give equal representation to the opposing points of view would be placing on them an unreasonable burden, although they would do their best to exercise their responsibility.
I do, however, like the hon. Gentleman's suggested words "shall have regard to the varying views." At first sight, that would not seem to be unreasonable, but I would like to consider the words, and I do not want to be committed to exact numbers or to the form of his present Amendment. I am quite certain that those responsible will have regard

to the varying points of view. If they are given too close a directive they will be in danger of making many enemies, but if I can find some words of a more general nature to follow what the hon. Gentleman said, I will certainly do so.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he has approached our Amendment. I do not think that there would be any practical difficulties at all in the returning officers' choosing a certain number from each side. The Home Office must not think that this issue will be fought on the lines of a Sunday cinema poll—on the sidelines, with not many people knowing about it and only about 4 per cent. voting. Of course, there will be sides taken, and both sides will he organised. There is no doubt that in my own county, and in Caernarvon, and in Swansea and Merthyr there will be organisation on both sides, and there will be no difficulty there. The only difference will be that one side will have a lot of money and the other will have only its convictions. But conviction can sometimes beat money in this country. It has done so before, and it will again.
The principle is that, so far as practicable, the observers should be drawn from those who are for and those who are against. That is desirable in order to ensure that there is fair play. The Minister has kindly offered to look at the words which my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) used. I am sure that he will do that. I have spoken to my hon. Friend about it. He and I would be disposed to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the Minister will consider the suggestion which my hon. Friend made.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 46, line 37, after "conviction", insert:
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or".

In line 37, at end insert:
or to both such imprisonment and such fine".—[Mr. Vosper.]

Fourth Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO CLUB RULES.)

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 49, line 6, after "all" to insert "ordinary".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that with this Amendment could conveniently be taken the next following three Amendments, that is to say:
In page 49, line 9, after "matters", to insert "(a)".
In page 49, line 10, after "twenty one", to insert "(b)"
In page 49, line 11, after second "club" to insert:
 and
(c) members who are temporary country, overseas or Service members and who do not pay the full annual subscription

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Paragraph 2 (4) provides that
At a general meeting the voting must be confined to members, and all members entitled to use the club premises must be entitled to vote, and must have equal voting rights".
The Workmen's Club and Institute Union objects strongly to this. It would mean that union associates from other clubs, honorary members, social members, country members and temporary members, all of whom usually have restricted rights and privileges of membership, would be entitled to attend and vote at general meetings, which they cannot do at present.
The proviso to the sub-paragraph does not exclude from voting any of those classes of members. The union suggests that the only persons who should have the right to attend general meetings should be ordinary members paying the full rate of subscription and who are entitled to all the rights and privileges of membership.
In paragraph 3 of the Schedule, reference is made in three places to ordinary members, thus making a differentiation between members and ordinary members. The position where a club could overload its membership with non-voting classes of members is safeguarded by sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 which provides that:
The rules must not make any such provision for the admission of persons to membership otherwise than as ordinary members

…as is likely to result in the number of members so admitted being significant in proportion to the total membership.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The brief which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) read sounds very much like one I prepared. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got it from. I hope the House will forgive me if I suggest that we should spend a little time on this Amendment. It is by a long way the most important Amendment we have discussed today, if not the most important in many respects to the whole of Part III, in that, if the Schedule went through in its present form, it would make a complete nonsense of the Bill.
All the major clubs in the country have different classifications of members. The Amendment in my name, in page 49, line 11, which we are discussing at the same time, refers to temporary country, overseas or Service club members who do not pay the full annual subscription. Apart from the constituent clubs of the Workmen's Club and Institute Union, all the golf clubs of the country have temporary country, overseas and Service members. Most of the London clubs have country members, temporary members and Service members. Practically all the working-men's clubs have got social members who are temporary members. Many of the Service clubs, of course, have special arrangements for Service members of different kinds.
11.30 p.m.
In almost every one of these cases these people do not pay the full annual subscription and are not entitled to full privileges. It therefore becomes essential to ensure that in the case of the 99 per cent. of respectable clubs we do not give a power of voting to any of these members other than those who are entitled to the full rights of membership, pay the full subscription and carry the full responsibility.
What is the difficulty, therefore? Briefly, it is this. In the case of the 1 per cent. of unrespectable clubs the draftsman of the Clause as it was standing was hoping to be able to prevent the promoter of such a club from being able to retain control over the voting; that is to say, if six men got together to run a club, they could, by being the only six ordinary members, retain voting control, and then they could of course, have a


mass of ordinary other members who did not pay the full annual subscription, and in that way they could run a proprietary club under the guise of a members' club.
I do not for a moment believe that this is an effective way of dealing with this control. If one wished, one could get round it in many ways quite easily. The real essence of it is controlled in two ways. One is that sub-paragraph (2) says that the main number of full members must be a considerable majority, and, therefore, that the country and overseas members are to be only an insignificant part of the whole. But the real control is to ensure that there is a properly elected committee; if it is a bona fide run club with a properly elected committee, that acts as a quite proper control.
Where it does not, if risk there must be, it must in this case he in favour of all the respectable clubs of the country. It would be complete nonsense for all of them if they had to face the difficulty of not being able to give their ordinary members proper voting rights because they had to give them to all the other categories of members which exist in the London clubs, the sporting clubs, the working-men's clubs and the whole setup of clubs in the country.
Therefore, I hope that, if not here, in another place a clear undertaking will be given that the spirit and purpose of the Amendments can be met.

Mr. Vosper: I fully accept there the point raised by both hon. Members is a very serious one. The Government will use every endeavour to meet their point, which is a perfectly fair one. I had hoped to be able to say that the Government had found a solution to the problem, but my conclusions are not yet quite complete.
As my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) realises, there is a great risk in accepting either of the Amendments referred to that one could enable the promoter of a bogus club to create a special class of voting members who would exercise control of the club and the vast majority of other members would be excluded from voting.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has differentiated between two forms of members by using the term "ordinary". It is true that that

features in the Bill and is well understood in club language, but I am advised that legally it would provide the loophole we are most anxious to avoid.
I should like both hon. Members to rest assured that we are fully seized of the problem and that neither of the solutions that they suggest will, as I am at present advised, take care of the problem without providing the additional loophole, but when the Bill is in another place I hope to find some more effective words. That being the case, I hope that the hon. Members will not press their Amendments.

Mr. Fletcher: I am very much obliged for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, in page 49, line 33, after "consisting", to insert:
as to not less than three-fourths of the members of the committee".
This Amendment proposes a very slight change in the composition of the elective committee which is referred to in paragraph 4 (1) of the Fourth Schedule, according to which the elective committee is one that has to be elected by the club. I proposed that it should have to be elective only as to three-quarters of its membership.
My reason is that there are some elective committees to which it is desired by the club to co-opt some of the membership. I must be frank and say that the case which brought this to my mind was one in which a club was affiliated to a political party—I will not say which one—and it was desired to co-opt some members of that party. Although that is the case which has prompted this Amendment obviously, in the nature of things, the situation must arise from time to time where a club desires to co-opt members to its elective committees who are not members of the club.
No harm could be done, and there would be no infringement of the principle it is designed to enshrine in the provisions of the Schedule, if it was permissible that some part of the membership of an elective committee could be made up of co-opted or nominated members. I hope the Government might feel able to accept the point. It involves


very small change, and it is one which would provide an authority which might or might not be used by members of clubs in large numbers.

Mr. Vosper: I am still a little puzzled by the Amendment, as I was when I first saw it. Paragraph 4 (3) of the Schedule reads:
…a committee of which not less than two-thirds of the members are members of the club elected to the committee in accordance with sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall be treated as an elective committee.
Therefore, the Bill already provides for a committee of which only two-thirds are elected; this is going a little better than three-quarters.
There are two exceptions, which are, perhaps, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind—a committee of less than four members, and the wine committee. It is an important part of the Bill that control of wine should be entirely by elective members. If that is the point he is pressing, then I am not enthusiastic to concede it. If the point is on elective committees as a whole, then it is already fully met.

Sir F. Soskice: If I may speak again by leave of the House—it was the exceptions that I had in mind. Clearly, there must be an exception of the committee with less than four members, because that would involve a dichotomy which would be difficult to achieve in terms of physical composition. I had in mind—I am sorry that I did not make this clear—the committee which was concerned with the purchase by the club or supply by the club of intoxicating liquor.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the wine committee, but there are different clubs and there are obviously different circumstances in which elective members will control the purchase of and supply by the club of intoxicating liquor, but if he is prepared to accept, in the case of other elective committees, the principle that they need not be wholly elective, there cannot be any cogent reason why the same reasoning should not be applied to the wine or liquor committee. I do not suggest the fraction of one-third but the more modest one of one-quarter.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman might be able to see his way to accepting the Amendment, which brings things

rather more into line. I cannot see clearly why there should be this rather more rigid requirement with regard to the committee concerned with the purchase of and supply of intoxicating liquor by the club.

Mr. Vosper: It is an important principle of this part of the Bill that the control of wine or liquor should be exercised by the elective members. That is the issue, and I cannot be too forthcoming on that. If he will let me have details of the case he has in mind, I can examine it to see if anything can be done, but I would not like to say that we could relax the general principle that liquor must be under the control only of elective members.

Sir F. Soskice: By leave of the House again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I will let him have particulars of the case I have in mind. I am grateful to him for saying that he will consider whether anything can be done in the light of that case. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sixth Schedule.—(PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION OF CLUBS, AND RELATED MATTERS.)

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 52, line 45, to leave out subparagraph (5) and to insert:
(5) Upon the lodging of any such application or amended application or any such notice with the clerk to the justices a club shall send a copy each to any chief officer of police concerned and to the clerk of any local authority concerned.
The object of this Amendment is that when an application is lodged with the clerk to the justices a copy shall be sent to the chief officer of police and the clerk of the local authority. That is to enable them to have notice of the application and to take any steps they may wish. That seems a reasonable proposition and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Vosper: It would be very nice at, this stage of the proceedings to say that I could accept the spirit of the Amendment, but, with respect to the hon. Member, it is not very good sense.
At the moment, the clubs are required to send their notices to the clerk to the justices who is required to


send them forthwith to the other bodies interested. I am well aware that some local authorities think that direct notification to them would save time, but we are already imposing a fairly considerable burden on the clubs and, while it is a fairly easy undertaking for them to send their notices direct to the clerk to the justices, if they are also to distribute them to local authorities and other bodies, that is imposing an additional burden upon them. Many representations have been sent to me about the smaller clubs which might be confused as to which local authority they are required to send to.
Following the representations made to me earlier tonight, I do not think that the burden on clubs should be too great. It would be better to allow them to send their notices direct to the justices as envisaged in the Bill, the clerks to the licensing justices being instructed to send them forthwith to the other bodies. I think that we should stick to what is in the Bill in the interests of the clubs. I think that that will work perfectly satisfactorily.

Mr. Fletcher: I find what the Minister says reasonable, and, in those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 52, line 50, at the end to insert:
(6) A club applying for the issue of a registration certificate for any premises, or for the renewal of a registration certificate in respect of different, additional or enlarged premises, shall give public notice of the application (identifying those premises and giving the name and address of the club) either—

(a) by displaying the notice on or near the premises, in a place where it can conveniently be read by the public, for the seven days beginning with the date of the application; or
(b) by advertisement on one at least of those days in a newspaper circulating in the place where the premises are situated.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may be convenient with this Amendment to take the following Government Amendment.

Mr. Vosper: In view of the very reasonable attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), I can say that this Amendment is moved as a result of an Amendment which he advanced in Committee to

provide that members of the public with an interest in the application of a new club should be made aware of the application being made, which is not provided as the Bill stands.
Although notification would go to the authorities, the resident who may be interested in the premises might not be aware of the application. In Committee the hon. Member suggested that some way should be found to advertise the application. The Amendment does that.
The applicant has to advertise in one of two ways—he is given a choice. He can put an advertisement at or near the premises for seven days, or advertise for one day in the local newspaper.
That entirely meets the hon. Member's case. It is a reasonable request to make to the club.

Mr. Fletcher: I remember having made this suggestion in Committee and I am very gratified to see that the Minister has adopted it. I need hardly add that it considerably improves the Bill and has my wholehearted support.

Amendment agreed to.

Seventh Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS ABOUT CLUBS.)

Amendment made: In page 55, line 34 after "premises", insert:

(a) public notice shall not be required of the application;
(b).—[Mr. Vosper.]

Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 55, line 39, at the end to insert:
(4) Where during the transitional period a club remaining registered under the 1953 Act in respect of any premises applies for the issue of a registration certificate for those premises, section twenty-five of this Act shall not apply so as to authorise an inspection of the premises by a constable, if the club had for the three years preceding the appointed day been registered under the 1953 Act in respect of the premises.
I have referred to this Amendment which deals with police inspection of established premises. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said that we would further consider the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page line 19, leave out paragraph (a).

In line 27, leave out from "renewals)" to "and" in line 30.

In line 42, leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
(d) There shall be no appeal to quarter sessions against the grant of the licence.

In page 57, line 9, leave out from "if" to "sub-paragraph" in line 12 and insert:
the required notice of the application is given to the clerk to the licensing justices while the club remains registered under the 1953 Act".

In line 18, at end insert:
(3) Where on an application made in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above a justices' on-licence is granted for premises in the Carlisle district, and till then the premises have at all times since the coming into operation of state management in the district been premises of a registered club, proviso (a) to subsection (1) of section seventy-seven of the 1953 Act (which, as amended by this Act, excepts from the control of the Secretary of State under that subsection premises which have been licensed premises at all such times and, as originally enacted, also excepted premises which have been the premises of a registered club at all such times), shall thereafter apply to the premises as if at all such times before the coming into force of the licence the premises had been licensed premises.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Eighth Schedule.—(REPEALS.)

Amendments made:

In page 59, line 50, column 3 at beginning insert:
Section thirteen (but without prejudice to subsection (3) of section fourteen)

In page 60, line 28, column 3 at beginning insert:
Section three.
In section four, the words "at their general annual licensing meeting" and the proviso. Section five.

In line 28, column 3 at end insert "subsection (9)".

In line 32, column 3 at end insert:
Sections eight and nine.
In section ten, in subsection (1) the words "under this Act", and in subsection (2), the words "as confirmed by the confirming authority" and the words from "and" onwards
In section eleven, the proviso to subsection (1).
In section eighteen, in subsection (1) the words "confirming and", wherever occurring.
Section twenty.

In line 33, column 3 after "twenty-one", insert "subsections (2) and (3)"

In line 52, column 3 leave out "Sections" and insert:
In section twenty-five, subsections (3) and (6).
Sections twenty-six, twenty-nine.

In line 53, column 3 at end insert:
In section thirty-five, subsection (3) from "and" onwards.

In page 61, line 10, column 3 at end insert:
In section forty-eight, in subsection (2), the words "confirming or", and in subsection (7) the words "or confirmed" and the words "or confirm".
In section forty-nine, in paragraph (g), the words "or confirming authorities".
In section fifty, subsection (1).

In line 12, column 3 after "fifty-two", insert:
in subsection (2), the words 'confirming and' in both places, and".

In line 14, column 3 leave out "subsection" and insert "subsections (2) and."

In line 27, column 3 leave out from "seventy-one" to end of line 29, and insert:
subsections (3), (6) and (9).
In section seventy-four, in subsection (1), the words 'to (3) and (9)' in paragraph (c).
In section seventy-five, in subsection (1), the words 'to (3) and (9)' in proviso (b).

In line 29, column 3 at end insert:
In section seventy-seven, in subsection (1), the words "or in the premises of any registered club," the words "or premises of a registered club" and the words "or premises of a registered club, as the case may be.

In line 43, column 3 after "ninety-one," insert "subsection (1) and."

In line 52, column 3 after "ninety-nine," insert "subsection (1) and."

In page 62, line 7, column 3 at end insert:
In section one hundred and five, in subsection (1), the words "at their general licensing meeting".

In line 30, column 3 at end insert "and subsection (5)."

In line 55, column 3 at end insert:
In section one hundred and thirty-four in subsection (1), the words "at their general annual licensing meeting or at a transfer sessions.
In page 63, line 13, column 3 after "of," insert:
'new justices' licence,' 'old off-licence'.
In line 22, column 3 leave out from "the" to "Fifth" in line 30 and insert:
First Schedule, in Part II, the words "confirming and," wherever occurring in paragraphs 1 to 10; in paragraph 1, in the proviso, the words from "to act" to "deemed," paragraph 2 from "and for the" onwards, in paragraph 4 the words "as compensation authority," and paragraph 10 from "and for the" onwards; paragraphs 11 to 17.
The Second, Third."—[Mr. Vosper.]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 141]

Orders of the Day — IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

11.46 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Tin Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 5th June.
This Order is required to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the second International Tin Agreement, signed by Her Majesty's Government in London on 3rd November, 1960. This Council will be the successor to the present International Tin Council, established under the International Tin Agreement, 1954, which came into effect on 1st July, 1956. The duration of the earlier Agreement was fixed at five years from the date of its entry into force. It is, therefore, due to terminate on 30th June of this year and to be followed by the new Agreement which it is hoped will become effective on 1st July.
As is the case with the present Council, the new Council will have its headquarters in London. I think that the House will agree that this is a tribute to London's traditional importance as the centre of the international tin market.
When the present Council was established, it was granted certain legal capacities and privileges by two Orders in Council made in 1956 and 1957. The new Council will continue the work of its predecessor, and it is intended that it shall enjoy the same legal capacities and privileges. The Order, therefore, is designed merely to continue for the new Council the same measure of privileges for the same number of people as was established under the previous two Orders.
Knowing as I do the jealousy with which the House rightly regards any attempt to extend unduly diplomatic immunities and privileges, I am glad to be able to assure hon. Members on this occasion that I am seeking no extension at all beyond that which the House has already approved in relation to the International Tin Council.
As this Order involves no new departure in this field, I will not weary the House further. I hope that the House will be willing to accept the Order.

11.49 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I do not want to be tiresome and difficult, especially at ten minutes to Twelve o'clock, but I cannot for the life of me think why the International Tin Council should have the like exemption or relief from taxes and rates—apart from taxes on the importation of goods—as is accorded to a foreign sovereign Power. The Minister did not give us any indication as to why that should be. I understand that the Council has it at the moment, but why should it go on having an exemption from tax which other corporations do not have? I can understand that as a matter of international comity foreign sovereign Powers obviously have that right, but why elevate the Council to the status of a foreign sovereign Power?
It seems an extraordinary procedure. The House and the country are no doubt generous in their approach to these bodies, but when we are asked to forgo public revenue in the case of the Tin Council we should be told why. What is the justification, in common sense, for exempting it from the requirements of paying tax? I do not know what its income is, or if it has an income, but if it has why should it not be a taxable income, in the same way as that of any other corporation or body in this country?
Not only has the Council this exemption from tax: paragraph 4 of the Order says:
All employees of the Council except citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall enjoy exemption from income tax in respect of emoluments received by them as officers or servants of the Council.
I do not know how many employees the Council has in this country other than British subjects, but if it has 10, 20, 50 or 100 who receive their emoluments, earned in this country, as servants of the Council, why should they not be subject to the same liability to pay tax as are other taxpayers? The Minister cannot ask us to pass this sort of proposal on the nod. We are responsible for the custody of public funds, and we are under a duty to see that the public revenue is collected and properly spent. I cannot understand why this airy exemption is thrown out to us at midnight, and why we are expected to receive it with a smile and with acclaim.
I do not know what valuable functions the Council performs in order to earn tax exemption. How long has it had it? What are its functions? Why should these special functions carry this valuable immunity in the case of persons who apparently live and work here; have to bring up their families here; enjoy the amenities of this country; are protected by the police and by the defence services of this country, and are able to enjoy the various privileges and advantages which are available to people who live here?
I do not want to be mean or ungenerous and suspicious in my approach, but I put it to the Minister that for him, airily and casually, almost as if there were something funny about it—as if he were telling us an amusing bedtime story—to expect us to agree to this Order, is a little too much. We should be told why the public revenue is to be deprived of this source of income. How far are we going? There must be some limit to this. The immunities conferred upon various bodies and persons week in and week out under this Government, and probably under preceding Governments, reach large and almost frightening proportions. We should have some further explanation why this concession is thought to be justified.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). I do not oppose the Order, because no additional people are receiving these immunities. But will the Foreign Office do its duty and cut down these immunities and come to arrangements with foreign countries so that they are extended only to ambassadors and those who should receive them, and not to all these extraordinary people and civil servants from other countries?

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) should have thought that I was dealing with this somewhat lightly. I felt that the argument I had adduced justified me in taking only a short period of time, particularly at this late stage of night. It was not my fault that it came at such a late stage.
I noticed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman shifted his ground from the last time we discussed an Order of this kind, when he waxed indignant about an extension of privileges. On this occasion he realised that there was no extension here, and he therefore shifted his ground to the question of why this Council should be entitled to tax exemption at all. There is some justice in my reminding the House that the principle of according these immunities to this Council was accepted by the House in 1956 when the first Order was passed, and I am, therefore, asking for no extensions tonight. I thought, in those circumstances, it was not fair to bore the House with a long dissertation.
I will repeat, in view of what has been said, that there is no extension of any kind whatever. As to why this Council should receive these particular exemptions, the House should realise that in accepting that the Tin Council should be established in this country—and that is a valuable thing for the trade of this country—it was part of the agreement which was entered into at the time of the first Tin Council that, subject to the approval of this House, there should be arrangements for the mitigation of tax in the same way as there is in regard to certain other international bodies set up in other capitals of the world.
This is not a body which is trading for profit at all. It is a body doing a useful international function in that it is trying to stabilise the price of a commodity. Time and time again hon. Members opposite have urged us to establish some stabilising body for some commodity to help under-developed countries. Here is one set up for that purpose. I thought it would be welcomed and that its activities in this capital city of ours would be something we could take credit for, and that it would not be necessary to be niggling in regard to this.

Sir F. Soskice: I am not complaining of its functions. I simply asked what its functions were. I am inquiring why its functions merit immunity from tax. That is what I want to know. I am not complaining that it is set up. No doubt it is an excellent thing, but why should this particular function be accompanied by this extraordinary result?

Mr. Godber: That was what I was seeking to explain, but I thought I was entitled to assume from the tone of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was in some respects questioning the merit of the Order. I am grateful for his explanation that that was not so.
This is not a trading body in the normal sense of making a profit, and there is not the same feeling of the necessity to exact taxes from it. It is a body set up to stabilise a commodity price.

Sir F. Soskice: Would the Parliamentary Secretary please tell me, if the body does not make profits, on what could it be taxed?

Mr. Godber: I said it was not set up for the purpose of making profits. On occasion it may make a profit on some transaction, and on other occasions it will make a loss. It buys and sells tin to stabilise the market, and such profits as it makes are transferred back to the constituent bodies which provided the tin. It does not retain any profits for its own use.
When it was set up there was certainly competition to have this body, and one of the arrangements agreed was that if it was set up in London it would have these advantages regarding taxation. I am not, therefore, asking for any new powers, but merely an extension to carry forward to the new Tin Council the arrangements previously provided. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will not feel it is unreasonable. Knowing the feelings about the extension of immunities I looked at this most carefully, and I am convinced that there is

nothing here that contravenes the view hon. Members hold generally against any extension of privileges. I believe this body is one entitled to some help and assistance because of the valuable work it does. I hope the House will be willing to accept the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Tin Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 5th June.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — LAND COMPENSATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Sir H. Harrison.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — FACTORIES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Sir H. Harrison.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — POLICE PENSIONS BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — DISTRICT NURSES

12.2 a.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Sir H. Harrison.]

Mr. Percy Browne: My pleasure at having the opportunity of raising this question is somewhat tempered by the lateness of the hour, and I should like to apologise to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for keeping her out of her bed.
I am glad to have the chance of discussing this very real problem of the shortage of district nurses in various parts of the country. It is impossible to discuss this problem without also mentioning the shortage of midwives. I know that that shortage is appreciated by the Ministry, which issued a memorandum to authorities which stated:
The need for action by hospital authorities to secure the improvement in staffing and organisation of midwifery departments gives guidance on the kind of action to be taken…
etc. At the present time, out of 70,000 registered midwives only 50,000 are practising. Within this general shortage there is a particular shortage, and a very high percentage, among district nurses. I mention this particularly because in the country districts the nurse is also the midwife.
I believe that this shortage is likely to increase. In Devon we are 12 short, but the average age of midwives in the county is well into the 50s. I know one district nurse who will be compulsorily retired next year who has continued working because there was no one to take her place. I wish to discuss the reasons for this shortage and to suggest to my hon. Friend what should be done about it.
The main reason for the shortage is the conditions and pay of the service. I appreciate that the conditions and pay of the service are negotiated between the Whitley Council and the local authorities. Because the rate of pay has gone up since 1956 from £560 to £814, it can be said, I suppose, that the improvement has been good, but not all district nurses are on maximum salaries, nor have many of the conditions

of service been carried out for various reasons. Much of the increase in pay has been vitiated by an increase in rents.
Here are the complaints. First, that the 5 per cent. increase made last December in the rates of pay has been cancelled out by the agreement which was entered into at the same time as the last pay award that the tied house rents should be increased. I give two examples from letters I have received for district nurses in Devon. The first says:
I am about to be charged 55 per cent more for rent and rates, an extra £31 per annum after the 5 per cent. increase.
Another says:
My rent was £4 17s. 6d. a month plus rates. Now it will be £8 17s. 6d. a month plus rates.
That is getting on for 100 per cent. While no rent and rates can be more than an eighth of the salary of a district nurse, and while I appreciate that the authorities have responsibility to their ratepayers, and county councils have difficult decisions to make, nevertheless these increases have already had an aggravating effect in increasing the shortage of district nurses.
The second complaint is that district nurses are not getting the time off to which they are entitled. This again is partly due to the general shortage. There are no relief nurses. Again I quote from a letter from a district nurse in Devon:
In spite of a 44 hour week Devon nurses are still having one 24 hour day off call in seven with a two day week end every sixth week and, this is the bone of contention. Young nurses just will not tolerate these conditions.
I think that last sentence of the letter is the crux of the matter. The extra hours, the added expense of living on one's own and the lack of regular hours are the reasons why young nurses are not now coming forward.
Finally, and interrelated with these other problems, is that of their loneliness as compared with nurses in hospitals who can take part in the community life of the hospital. With these irregular hours, just as irregular as those of a doctor or a Member of Parliament, it is understandable that district nurses cannot take part in the local community activities. I believe that district nurses play a vital part in the maintenance of the health of the nation. We in the countryside know of their worth. They


are tireless, selfless and always ready to come to our aid. If this vital service is to flourish, I believe the Minister must take a hand, hence my reason for raising this matter tonight.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will say that it is up to the local authorities and the Whitley Council to negotiate conditions and rates of pay and that therefore the Minister cannot intervene. That, of course, is technically correct, but I do not believe that the Minister can stand aside if this service is not to break down. The cost in cash, if it does break down, will be considerable, let alone the cost in unhappiness.
The after-care of mothers, the time that mothers are in hospital being nursed, is often reduced now to forty-eight hours after confinement. If they have not the care of a district nurse afterwards, they will have to stay longer in hospital and the log-jam will increase. The chronically sick and the aged who are now cared for at home will have to go into homes or hospitals, at a probable cost of at least £14 per bed per week. That is why I say that it is up to the Minister to take a lead in ensuring that these dedicated people get better pay and conditions, for if he does not do so I do not believe that young nurses will come forward. At the same time, the cost to the country, in both money and unhappiness, will be considerable.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will consider what I have said and, if nothing else, endeavour to persuade both local authorities and the Whitley Council that it is high time that better conditions were available for district nurses.

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) has raised a very important subject tonight and has described a problem which is by no means confined to his own county of Devon. We all recognise that within the particularly devoted and hard-working profession of nursing the district nurse certainly works as hard and as devotedly as any. I believe that the situation in many parts of this country is disturbing, to say the least. I hope that the hon. Lady in the course of her reply will try to indicate how far the situation described by her hon. Friend is common to other country areas and, indeed, to the

country as a whole. We in London are perhaps not quite so dependent upon the district nurse as people in remote country districts. Nevertheless, we could certainly not get on without her.
I should also like to know whether the rent increases described by the hon. Gentleman are peculiar to his own country. It has always struck me as very unfortunate that, whenever nurses get an increase in pay, whether they are hospital nurses or district nurses, there always seems to be some counterbalancing factor in the form of a rent increase or an increase in deductions for board in nurses' homes attached to hospitals. This always seems to take the edge off the increase. I hope that now and again there is an increase which has not any strings of this kind attached to it.
Finally, perhaps the hon. Lady will say whether she feels that the terms and conditions under which district nurses now work are comparable to those of their sisters within the hospital service. They do a different job, and I know that some of them prefer the relative independence of district nursing. Nevertheless, it is important that the two sectors of nursing should be kept in balance. This can be done only by an intelligent appreciation of the differentials both in terms and in conditions of work.

12.13 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) in paying tribute to the district nurse. I am grateful for the opportunity this Adjournment debate offers of acknowledging the valuable contribution of the district nurse in caring for the sick and disabled, and the wholehearted effort which local authorities have put into developing this service so efficiently.
There are two points which need to be made clear. First, the provision of a home nursing service, including the recruitment of enough nurses to staff it, is a duty which has been laid by Parliament on local authorities. Secondly, any shortcomings in this service must not be allowed to obscure the fact that local authorities, since they were given this duty about thirteen years ago, have done a magnificent job in developing, expanding and improving it. It is so important


to get this into the right perspective that I should like to remind the House in a few words of what has been achieved.
Since 1948, under the National Health Service Act, every local health authority has been under an obligation to see that a home nursing service is provided, free to those who use it, in their area. Prior to 1948, their powers were very limited, and in many parts of the country the service available meant that it was only thinly covered. The Act did not put an end to voluntary effort, because it allowed the local authority to discharge its duty through the agency of the voluntary organisations, and we still have cause to be grateful for the help given in this work by the voluntary bodies.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North asked what the position was throughout the country. In 1948, there were 7,800 district nurses in England and Wales. Every year since then the numbers have increased, and at the end of 1960 there were 10,300 altogether. But this alone is not a true index of the development of the service; improved techniques, improvement in organisation and improvements in training have probably done as much as the increase in numbers to enhance the value of their work to the community.
The quality of the service naturally varies from authority to authority, but I can assure hon. Members that we rarely receive complaints about the efficiency either of the organisation or of the individual nurses, and it is fair to say that the standard generally is very high. Against this background we can look more closely at some of the points made by my hon. Friend.
First—shortage. As I have already said, at the end of 1960 over 10,000 district nurses were employed. Local health authorities, if they were able to recruit them, would like to employ about four hundred more district nurses. This is what local authorities think desirable, but I have no reason to think that the existing service with the present numbers is not proving adequate. Compared with the shortages in some other professions both inside and outside the National Health Service this overall picture is a reasonably satisfactory one, especially as we see the total numbers employed rising steadily year by year.
In any case, the total figures do not give a clear enough picture. In most parts of the country the service is fully, or practically fully staffed. The shortage tends to be concentrated in some of the more remote rural areas, and in certain industrial towns. The explanation for the shortage in the rural areas lies, in part, in the fact that this work attracts married women. There are large numbers of married women—and I am glad to note that—in the service, but that also means that there is no suitable work in the rural areas for their husbands. In the industrial towns, the problem is the variety of work outside nursing, and the fact that nursing in the industrial towns is often carried out in unattractive neighbourhoods. That cannot possibly apply today hon. Friend's constituency.
There is no lack of effort anywhere on the part of the local health authorities to fill the vacancies, and a great deal has been done to improve the working conditions by such measures as the provision of assisted-car-purchase schemes and allowances towards running costs and—a very important factor—good housing accommodation. Loans totalling £1¼ million were sanctioned by the Government in 1960 for the provision of houses and flats for home nurses and midwives, and this does not take into account those allocated to their nursing staff by county boroughs which are, of course, themselves housing authorities.
My hon. Friend spoke of rents, and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North asked me to expound upon the subject. Many district nurses live in accommodation provided by their employing authority, for which they pay rent. Until fairly recently, the rents were controlled by the Whitley Council, which laid down the maximum charges that could be made. Following the comprehensive review of the salaries in 1959, however, the Whitley Council agreed that an imposed maximum charge for rent was no longer justified. In November, 1959, therefore, the Council decided to discontinue its control, and to leave it to the employing authorities to fix the rent at an appropriate level, but not exceeding the full economic rent for the acommodation provided. In deciding the appropriate rent, the employing authorities were required to take into account any disadvantages imposed on the nurse


through having to occupy the accommodation, for instance, if a room had to be set aside for professional purposes or if the accommodation was clearly in excess of her needs.
These new arrangements, though agreed in November, 1959, were not, however, to come into effect until 1st December, 1960, a full year later. Moreover, the nurses had to be informed by 1st June, 1960, of the new rents they were to be charged from 1st December, 1960. Ample notice of the change, therefore, was provided for.
There seems to be an impression that these new arrangements for rent are linked in some way with the recent 5 per cent. increase in salaries, which my hon. Friend spoke of as being entered into at the same time and to which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North referred when he spoke of strings being attached to the salary increase. In fact, there is no connection between them, and the fact that the changes in salaries and rents both took effect from 1st December, 1960, is purely a coincidence. The agreement about rents was reached in November, 1959, whereas the agreement on salary increases was not concluded until January, 1961. Where, as a result of the former agreement, rents have now been increased, it is likely that the nurse had previously been receiving the benefit of a low rent at a time when her salary was being substantially increased.
I have mentioned some of the things which have been done to make conditions more attractive to the district nurse, but there are some obstacles to recruitment which, with the best will in the world, it is difficult for local authorities to overcome.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is it a fact that there is no limitation as a fraction of a midwife's income such as the hon. Member for Torrington suggested?

Miss Pitt: No, there is no limitation beyond the economic rent. If a fraction is applied in the county of Devon, it must be a local ruling.

Mr. P. Browne: Yes, it is.

Miss Pitt: With the best will in the world, it is difficult for local authorities to overcome all the obstacles. In country areas where the district nurse is often the district midwife a temporary shortage

of staff may be felt acutely in the neighbourhood. I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend raised.
My hon. Friend is particularly interested in North Devon. At present, out of the Devon County Council's total establishment of 176 district nurses, there are eight vacancies, not 12, as my hon. Friend said. I know that he got that figure from me some time ago. Happily, the position has improved.

Mr. Browne: I got it from the head of the nursing service in Devon forty-eight hours ago.

Miss Pitt: Since my information also comes from Devon, I think we must check the facts. I am informed that the present position is that there are eight vacancies, and these are being covered by temporary staff or by staff from neighbouring areas in such a way that a satisfactory service is being maintained throughout the county. This is a considerable improvement on the position at the end of April, when there were twelve vacancies. A nurse took up her duties in the Hartland area a week ago, filling the post about which my hon. Friend wrote to me in March. This had been vacant since 31st December, 1960.
My hon. Friend suggests that the average age is high. District nursing is a profession which appeals to the older woman, particularly the one who returns to nursing after her family has grown up and no longer need such close care. Therefore, I should expect the average age to be relatively high. This is why, when the local authority provides housing, it is frequently two or three bedroom houses which are needed, because the nurse is married with a family or has elderly relatives to be accommodated. My hon. Friend spoke of nurses who are due to be retired. In fact, the Whitley Council rules do not stipulate any retiring age. A local authority may apply its own retiring age, but a nurse may continue nursing after 60 if there is a shortage in the area.

Mr. Browne: In the case I quoted, the lady is nearing her seventies and is being compulsorily retired next year.

Miss Pitt: Probably she herself is willing to look forward to the prospect of retiring if she is getting to the seventies, but there is nothing to prevent local authorities employing women over 60.
I should also like to explain that, following the Report in 1959 of the Advisory Committee on Training District Nurses a national standard of training has been established for this valuable member of the health team. A four-months' course has been introduced, which is reducible to three months for nurses with certain qualifications and experience, and it includes lectures on local authority services generally and practical work. There is an examination and a national certificate for successful candidates. The third examination was held in May of this year, and 220 out of 232 candidates were successful. The majority of the candidates were trained by the Queen's Institute of District Nursing. The Minister has also approved schemes provided by five local health authorities, and students from two of those participated.
I hope that more local authorities will commence training, and that the smaller ones will perhaps combine for this purpose in order to stimulate recruitment or add to the advantage of the nurse already in the service. If she passes the examination she qualifies for increased pay. Furthermore, she can be seconded on full pay by the employing authority to take this training, and I feel that that, because it enhances her status, is a stimulant to recruiting.
Salaries have been improved very considerably since the appointed day. In 1948 a district nurse with district training had a commencing salary of £300 with a maximum of £405. Now her commencing salary is £578 and her maximum £788. So the rate of pay has been almost doubled in the intervening period.
These increases are the result of salary reviews undertaken from time to time by the Whitley Council, the most recent being in March, 1959, and December, 1960. The salary of a district nurse with district training is now £53 a year higher at the minimum and £132 higher at the maximum than that of a staff nurse in a general hospital, which I think answers the point raised by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North.
A district nurse who is appropriately qualified and who holds a combined post as a district nurse midwife or a district nurse midwife/health visitor is paid at a higher level. The relative salary scales, all for nurses with district

training, are: district nurse, £578 rising to £788; district nurse midwife, £630 rising to £814; district nurse midwife/health visitor, £688 rising to £872.
My hon. Friend pressed very hard that the Minister should intervene in negotions for pay, but he really answered himself. There is the separate Whitley machinery. It is its responsibility. I could not agree that it would be right for my right hon. Friend to intervene or endeavour to persuade—as I think the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said—the Whitley Council to take action. It is its duty.
On relief nursing, the position at present is that the district nurse should have one consecutive period of 24 hours a week when she should be free from duty not on call, and this minimum Whitley provision is under review. Further, some authorities are able also to give one long weekend a month. To cover this relief—again, the pattern varies district by district, and I appreciate that Devon may not be in as happy a position as other areas—in some districts nurses from adjoining areas cover each other, and for annual leave and sickness some authorities have a pool of relief nurses. I would also explain that the district nurse is on call but it is most unusual for her to be called other than during ordinary duty hours. Again, in order to make an exception, if she is doing midwifery as well there may be difficulties.
I should like to add something about the work which is being done by the district nurses in the years since 1948. The number of visits to old people has steadily increased year by year to 14 million in 1960 because there are more old people and because we all realise how vital it is to try to help them remain in their own homes and not be uprooted and taken away.
Old people owe a great deal to the district nurse, as also do the children. It is equally important for the child to be nursed at home by its own mother wherever this is medically possible, under the care of the family doctor, assisted by the district nurse. The number of visits paid to young children by district nurses is falling, and this is probably due to the improved health of the younger generation.
The adaptability of the district nurse, helped by refresher courses which keep her up to date in new techniques, means that there has been a steadily increasing demand for her services. It is because local authorities are convinced of her value that they have made such successful efforts to meet this demand and to establish the home nurse firmly as an integral part of the Health Service. It is an impressive fact that, in this nation of just over 50 million people, something like 23 million home visits are made by district nurses every year, and there is no doubt that they will have an increasingly important part to play in the future.
The district nurse has made herself indispensable. Through her, the family doctor is able to play his part more fully. She is part of the health education team, helping to teach families the principles of health and hygiene. Above all, a strong home nursing service is essential to enable patients not needing hospital treatment to be cared for at home. We will continue to do all we can to support and strengthen this service.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.